BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Electoral Commissioners

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That Her Majesty, having been attended with its Address, was pleased to receive the same very graciously and give the following Answer, which was signed in her own hand:
	I have received your humble Address, praying that I should appointBridget Prentice to be an Electoral Commissioner for the period ending on 30 September 2018, and Alasdair Morgan to be an Electoral Commissioner for the period ending on 30 September 2016. I will comply with your request.
	.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Budget (Businesses)

David Amess: What assessment he has made of the potential effects of the measures in the 2014 Budget on businesses in Wales.

David Jones: The Budget represents the next step in our long-term economic plan with a package of measures to deliver economic security for businesses and people in Wales and across the UK.

David Amess: I hope that this is not too difficult a question for my right hon. Friend, but does he agree with my Welsh relatives that the best way to help businesses is to reduce taxation?

David Jones: My hon. Friend is entirely right, which is why we have reduced the rate of corporation tax from 28p in the pound to 21p, with a further reduction to 20% next year. For similar reasons, the Wales Bill makes provision for the Welsh Assembly to call a referendum on a lower rate of taxation for Wales, and I hope that it will seize that opportunity.

Peter Hain: Given that the future of businesses in Wales depends on the vibrancy of our young workers, is the right hon. Gentleman encouraged by the fact that the Welsh Government’s policies are clearly working, in that the youth unemployment rate has come down faster and further than anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Can he be less churlish towards the Welsh Government and praise the jobs growth fund and that achievement?

David Jones: Far from being churlish, I commend Jobs Growth Wales for making an important contribution. Having said that, it is a limited contribution, and the important thing is for the Welsh Government to work closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that we can drive down even further the unemployment rates.

Nia Griffith: With businesses in Wales still cautious and a Budget that does little to help the 300,000 people in Wales who are earning less than the living wage, will the Secretary of State now back Labour’s plans to give a tax break to businesses that raise their employees’ pay to at least the living wage, so that work will pay?

David Jones: As the hon. Lady knows, we have given every business in Wales relief against national insurance contributions of up to £2,000. We have also taken young people up to the age of 21 out of employers’ national insurance contributions altogether. I very much hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome that. It was an excellent Budget for business in Wales.

EU Membership

David Hanson: What assessment he has made of the net benefits to people in Wales of the UK’s membership of the EU.

Kevin Brennan: What estimate he has made of the level of trade undertaken by businesses in Wales with countries in the EU.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Whether he has recently discussed the importance of UK membership of the EU with leading employers in Wales.

David Jones: The EU remains a vital export market for Wales, together with countries outside the EU, but Wales and the UK would benefit from a renegotiated position within Europe, which is why the Prime Minister has committed to negotiating a new settlement in the European Union, to secure jobs and growth and to enable the EU to become more competitive, flexible and prosperous.

David Hanson: Given that 191,000 jobs in Wales are directly dependent on the EU, that £1 billion came to Wales last year from the EU, and that firms such as Ford in the south and Airbus in the north are committed to maintaining our relationship with the EU, will the Secretary of State join me in saying that the EU is good for Britain? The uncertainty that he is creating should be stopped.

David Jones: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that membership of a free trade area is extremely good for Britain. Where I disagree with him, I think, is on the level of intervention and top-down meddlesome interference by the EU. The people of this country clearly want a referendum on Europe and only the Conservative party can and will deliver that referendum.

Kevin Brennan: What Welsh business leaders want from their political leaders is certainty about our future in the European Union. Why is the Secretary of State so reluctant to say that being a member of the European Union is good for Wales? Is he personally committed to this country’s future membership of the European Union?

David Jones: As I have just made clear to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I believe that membership of a free trade area is extremely important for Britain, but what the people of this country want is a say on whether they should remain part of the sort of Europe we have at the moment. It is interesting that the Labour Party is not anxious to deliver a voice to the people of Wales.

Mr Speaker: I call Huw Irranca-Davies.

Huw Irranca-Davies: No. 4, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman misses the point. His question has been grouped and his moment is now.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I apologise, Mr Speaker. I misunderstood.

Mr Speaker: He was too busy looking at his iPhone. Let us hear his question.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am rightly reprimanded, Mr Speaker. I must pay attention.
	On the basis that the head of European operations has made it clear that to threaten exit from the EU would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, and that 14,000 jobs in Ford Bridgend and in Dagenham would rely on our not leaving the EU, will the right hon. Gentleman say that he, as the Secretary of State for Wales responsible for protecting those jobs, is personally committed to keeping Wales within the UK and the European Union?

David Jones: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the director of operations for Ford’s manufacturing operations in Europe, Mr Steve Odell. Mr Odell also said:
	“there are absolutely some rules and regulations…that are difficult to take”.
	We agree with Mr Odell on that and that is why we want the people of this country to have their say on their future in Europe after renegotiation, which only the Conservative party can and will deliver.

David Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people in Wales are deeply concerned about the extra powers that have been given to the European Union, largely by Labour Members, and that it is absolutely right that this coalition Government
	should seek to renegotiate our position in the European Union and put the results of that negotiation to the people of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom?

David Jones: My hon. Friend is entirely right. This Conservative party intends to renegotiate our position within Europe and to put that renegotiation to the British people in a vote by the end of 2017. We think that that is democracy and it is a shame that the Labour party does not share that view.

James Wharton: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to renegotiate and get a better deal from the European Union, but does he not also agree that it is about time we ended the uncertainty and that the only way we can do that is by giving the British people, not just in Wales but across the UK, a say in an in/out vote?

David Jones: My hon. Friend is right and I applaud his sterling efforts to try to achieve that. We intend to give the people of this country—the whole country—a vote on Europe and we are the only party that can and will do that.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, one opportunity offered by the European Union is that of greater investment in the energy supply in Wales and potential exports to the EU. What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with his colleagues in the European Union on the opportunities for such investment?

David Jones: The energy sector is very important for Wales and the Government are investing heavily in energy, including giving support for the new nuclear power station at Wylfa Newydd. The market between this country and Europe is extremely important—a two-way flow—and our energy interventions will ensure that our energy sector is supported.

Owen Smith: We know that this Government are out of touch, but listening to the Secretary of State this morning I fear that he is completely out of touch with the views of Welsh business about the European Union. Has he spoken to Ford, GE, Hitachi, Citibank, BMW or Airbus, which are all companies that have expressed their concerns? If he has not, does he know how many jobs in Wales are reliant on our membership of the European Union?

David Jones: I speak regularly to Welsh businesses—I dare say more frequently than the hon. Gentleman does. What is absolutely clear is that although Welsh businesses value their engagement with Europe, they feel that there is too much regulation and too much meddlesome interference from the European Union. We need to strike a proper balance. That is why we intend to renegotiate our position with Europe and at the end of that process hold a referendum.

Owen Smith: I doubt that the Secretary of State is actively talking to those businesses, because when I talk to them, what I hear are their grave concerns about the uncertainty that he is creating. He did not answer the question. In truth, one in seven jobs in Wales is now reliant on EU trade. Does he not accept that the attitude
	of his Government and the attitude of a Secretary of State who has referred to Europe as “a basket case” is jeopardising those jobs, and does he not realise that it is only Labour who will secure them? That is why a Labour vote next week is a vote for jobs in Wales.

David Jones: What I recognise fully is that the Labour party is reluctant—in fact, it is refusing—to give the British people a vote on this important issue. So far as business is concerned, the hon. Gentleman ought to understand that 72% of companies interviewed in north America for the Ernst and Young attractiveness survey thought that reduced integration in the EU would make the UK more attractive as a foreign direct investment location. He does not understand that; we do, which is why we can and we will give the people of Wales and Britain a vote on their future in Europe.

Philip Hollobone: With 300,000 people in Wales being paid less than the living wage, what impact does the Secretary of State consider uncontrolled immigration from the EU is having on wage levels in Wales?

David Jones: These matters will of course have to form part of the negotiation that we propose. We believe that by and large our membership of the EU has been beneficial for Britain, but clearly the form that we have at the moment needs renegotiation.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Elfyn Llwyd.

Elfyn Llwyd: No. 5, Mr. Speaker, and I do not have an iPhone. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Because of chuntering from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) from a sedentary position, the intervention was of no value—[Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] Order. Be quiet. Silly man. I call Mr Llwyd.

Farming Unions

Elfyn Llwyd: When he last met representatives of farming unions in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Crabb: Wales Office Ministers regularly meet the Welsh farming unions, which are an important voice for that vital industry in Wales.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister will know that at the last Budget the annual investment allowance was increased to £500,000 until 2015, but that is restricted to plant and machinery. Will he add his voice to the farming unions’ voice and many others that that should be extended to buildings and infrastructure in the coming years? Will he therefore plead that case on behalf of Welsh farmers?

Stephen Crabb: Those are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will raise his question with Ministers at the Treasury and discuss it further. On the whole, business throughout Wales welcomed the measures in the Budget to increase the investment allowance.

Elfyn Llwyd: On a more specific matter, the Minister knows about the case that I am about to raise with him, because he has a copy of the letter I wrote to his right hon. Friend in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Welsh Black species of cattle is not included on the native breeds endangered list in England; it is included in Wales. As a result, people are unable to export pedigree Welsh cattle over the border to England for those who wish to enter the English countryside stewardship scheme. That is a restraint of trade against Wales, it is unfair and it could be actionable. Will he please get DEFRA moving and get it to register appropriately?

Stephen Crabb: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the case with me and for sending me a copy of that correspondence. He raises an entirely fair and sensible point. The Welsh Black is a fine example of Welsh quality produce. There should not be any bureaucratic or policy reasons why it should not be able to be traded in England on an equal basis. I will look into the matter urgently with my colleagues from DEFRA.

Glyn Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 11 June some of the best produce from Wales will be on display and available for Members to sample in the Jubilee Room when we hold Montgomeryshire day?

Stephen Crabb: I was aware of that, and I encourage right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House to make their way to the Jubilee Room on that date and to sample some of Montgomeryshire’s finest produce.

Albert Owen: One of the issues that farmers and farming representatives raise with me is the need for clearer and better labelling and traceability. Some good work has been done at all levels, including the European Union. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling for even clearer labelling so that people can be confident that they are getting Welsh Black, which could be made in Anglesey, in Wales or in the United Kingdom?

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and we have recently discussed labelling on the Floor of the House. We need to be careful about not putting extra burdens on business at this time, but clearly, high-quality labelling which provides good, relevant information for consumers, particularly about country of origin, is an important way of marketing Welsh produce on a wider level.

Transport Investment

Karen Lumley: What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and others on transport investment in Wales.

David Jones: I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and key stakeholders across Wales and firmly believe that improving transport infrastructure is a key facilitator of economic growth.

Karen Lumley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Assembly Government should do their bit in electrifying the South Wales line, as they promised?

David Jones: Certainly, the electrification of the South Wales line is important for Cardiff and Swansea and the stations between. We are willing and anxious to perform our part of the bargain that we struck in July 2012. I have had recent discussions with both my right hon. Friend and the Welsh Minister for Economy, Science and Transport, and I hope that we can find a way forward.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister will be aware that the Department for Transport took a decision a few months ago to relocate all driver and vehicle licensing services from Northern Ireland to Swansea. What steps is he taking to ensure, along with his colleague, that the services provided to all motorists throughout the United Kingdom will not be adversely affected by this retrograde decision?

David Jones: The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has been established in Swansea for many years. It has a high level of expertise and I am entirely confident that it will be able to cope with all the demands that are made upon it.

Roger Williams: Mid-Wales businesses depend upon good access to the west midlands to maximise their economic opportunities. For those businesses based in Brecon, that means the A438. Will the Secretary of State work with the Welsh Assembly, the Department for Transport and local government to ensure that that route is upgraded, particularly around Hereford, where a bypass is needed to avoid the bottleneck?

David Jones: My hon. Friend raises an important issue that has been the subject of discussion for some time. These routes fall partly under the purview of the Welsh Government and partly under the Department for Transport. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about this very issue only this morning.

Jonathan Edwards: The Mayor of London is now making the case for a £30 billion underground orbital road. Crossrail will cost £16 billion and HS2 will cost £50 billion at least. Considering the historically low levels of transport infrastructure investment in Wales, far below our population share, when will the Secretary of State start making the case for a fair share for Wales via the appropriate funding formula mechanism?

David Jones: HS2, of course, is an extremely important project that will benefit Wales, particular north Wales and mid-Wales. I am speaking to David Higgins of HS2 about that issue this very afternoon.

Geraint Davies: The Prime Minister promised to electrify the railway line from Paddington to Swansea, and now he is saying that it will go to Cardiff and from Bridgend to Swansea, but not the bit in the middle. When will he listen to Swansea business, withdraw from the Punch and Judy performance
	between the Welsh and UK Governments, and get the project delivered on time and to budget for the Swansea city region’s jobs?

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman will know—I have made it clear previously and I make it clear once again—that the Government are entirely willing and anxious to perform their part of the bargain in the electrification of the Great Western main line. We are having continuing discussions with the Welsh Government, and I hope that they will be fruitful.

Defence Operations

Alun Cairns: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on that Department’s operations relating to Wales.

Stephen Crabb: Wales Office Ministers have regular discussions with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence on their operations in Wales and on how best we can support the armed forces in Wales.

Alun Cairns: The success of the St Athan enterprise zone is dependent on access to the MOD runway. The Welsh Government seem to have over-promised and under-delivered on the seven-day access. What progress is being made to ensure that they can take responsibility, so that companies based in St Athan can make the most of the opportunities provided by this MOD asset?

Stephen Crabb: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to an incident that took place only this weekend involving Cardiff Aviation. I have discussed the matter with the Welsh Minister for Economy, Science and Transport, Edwina Hart, and raised it with the Ministry of Defence. Clearly we have a shared interest with the Welsh Government in ensuring that commercial operations at St Athan are a success, and that is what we are working towards.

Border Health Care

Mark Harper: What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and Ministers of the Welsh Government on patient choice in health care on the Wales-England border.

David Jones: Access to high-quality health care is an important issue for people across the UK, and particularly for those in the border areas. Following last week’s discussions on the matter in this House, I have written to the Secretary of State for Health and the First Minister urging swift action be taken to find a solution to the current difficulties.

Mark Harper: The Secretary of State will know that a number of my constituents—thousands, in fact—are forced to use the NHS in Wales. They will therefore be very concerned by the report published yesterday, “Trusted to care”, which shows serious failings in the treatment of frail older people at two Welsh hospitals. Even the Labour Minister said he was shocked. Do not the people of Wales and my constituents deserve better?

David Jones: I think that Members across the House were equally shocked by the contents of the report. I am glad to see that the Welsh Minister of Health has taken some action on the matter, but I repeat that the Government are more than willing to offer our assistance, perhaps by commissioning a Keogh-style inquiry.

Ian Lucas: The Midland Centre for Spinal Injuries at Gobowen provides the highest quality of care to patients from Wales with spinal injuries. They are concerned about the future of specialist services because of NHS reforms in England. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the concerns expressed to me by my constituents?

David Jones: I agree entirely that the Gobowen hospital is a world-renowned centre of excellence, and I am concerned about what the hon. Gentleman says. I am very happy to meet him and would be grateful if he would contact my office.

Mark Williams: Access to cross-border health services is not restricted to the border areas, but access to specialist services is relevant to my constituents. The protocols are not working at the moment. In his discussions with Ministers, will the Secretary of State ensure that cross-border protocols are working for specialist services in particular?

David Jones: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Key to this issue is the cross-border protocol. As a consequence of last week’s debate, I have written to both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the Welsh Health Minister, and we will see whether we can improve that protocol.

HMRC (Welsh Language Services)

Hywel Williams: What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and others regarding the future of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Welsh language services.

Stephen Crabb: Wales Office Ministers have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and others, including the Welsh Language Commissioner, on the delivery of Welsh language services by UK Government Departments and public bodies in Wales.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the HMRC office in Porthmadog offers a first-class service in Welsh to private individuals and businesses that work in that language and that closing that office would be a disastrous step?

Stephen Crabb: I am very aware of the excellent work done by the Welsh language specialist team at Porthmadog. I would like to give him an assurance that the wider changes that are happening to the network of inquiry offices will not impact on the Welsh language service, an important service that we are determined to keep operational.

Cost of Living

Robert Halfon: What recent assessment he has made of the cost of living in Wales.

Stephen Crabb: The Government understand the financial pressures facing many households at this time. That is why we have introduced real practical measures to bring down the cost of living in Wales by freezing fuel duty and raising the personal allowance, taking some of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether. We are putting money back into the pockets of hard-working people in Wales.

Robert Halfon: Just as in Harlow, the Conservative-led coalition Government have had a relentless focus on helping people with the cost of living, by freezing fuel duty, freezing council tax and cutting tax for lower earners. Will my hon. Friend lobby the Treasury to go ever further and raise the threshold at which lower earners pay national insurance contributions?

Stephen Crabb: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does campaigning for those on the lowest incomes. Decisions on national insurance contributions are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I share my hon. Friend’s objective. We are determined to return more money to the pockets of hard-working people by taking them out of income tax.

Nick Smith: Train fares are high and electrification of the valleys lines is crucial for south Wales. What is the Minister doing to make sure that the Government are making sure that the 2019 electrification timetable will be met?

Stephen Crabb: Improving the rail network in the valleys is an important way of our connecting people in those communities, where unemployment is higher than average, with the new jobs that are being created in Cardiff and Newport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, discussions about electrification of the valleys lines are part of the discussions we are having with colleagues in the Welsh Government and colleagues at the Department for Transport about how we finance that major package of infrastructure improvements for south Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Jonathan Edwards: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 May.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Jonathan Edwards: The UK now has 104 billionaires—top of the global league. London alone has 72 billionaires —the top city in the world. Meanwhile, west Wales and the valleys is also top—in the top five poorest regions in western Europe. Is the Prime Minister at all concerned, or is he, like Labour’s Lord Mandelson,
	“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”?

David Cameron: I can say to the hon. Gentleman that what is worth while is the massive fall in unemployment and the increase in employment that we have seen across our country. In Wales, unemployment has fallen by 5,000 in the last quarter and fallen by 25,000 since the last election. That means that in Wales there are 59,000 more people in work. In terms of making sure that the richest in our country pay their taxes, actually we see the richest 1% paying a greater percentage of income tax than ever they did under Labour. We are seeing a broad-based recovery, and I want to make sure that everyone in our country can benefit. That is why we are cutting people’s taxes and allowing people to keep the first £10,000 of what they earn before they pay any income tax.

Roger Gale: At the end of November, Mrs Ann Gloag, a director of the Stagecoach company, acquired Manston airport in my constituency for £1. On Budget day this year, Mrs Gloag announced that she was going into consultation with a view to closing an airport that is worth hundreds of jobs and is a major diversion field and a search and rescue base. Since then, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and I have sought to find a buyer. Last night, the RiverOak company of Connecticut, which already has airport interests, put in an enhanced and realistic offer to keep Manston open, save the jobs, and develop the business. At present, the owners are reluctant to negotiate. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to engage in commercial negotiations, but will he seek to ensure that the Civil Aviation Agency operating licence remains open, that Manston remains open, and that further discussions are held; and will he encourage those discussions to take place?

David Cameron: I know that my hon. Friend has been fighting very hard, with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), about the future of Manston airport and recognises that it has played an important role in the local economy and employed local people. Ultimately, the future of Manston remains the responsibility of the airport owner, but it is important that the Government are engaged, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary is engaged. He will be speaking to Mrs Gloag about this issue and also contacting RiverOak, the potential purchasers. In the end, it has to make a commercial decision, but the Government will do everything they can to help.

Edward Miliband: I welcome the fall in unemployment. For all those people who have found work, it is good for them and good for their families.
	On the subject of high-skilled jobs in the UK, following the appearance of Pfizer at the Select Committee yesterday, can the Prime Minister tell us what further assurances he is seeking from Pfizer about its takeover of AstraZeneca?

David Cameron: First of all, may I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has welcomed the fall in unemployment? These are, of course, jobs that he predicted would never come to Britain and would never be there. This is important, because what we see today is the largest-ever quarterly increase in the number of people in work—283,000. We see unemployment coming down, youth unemployment coming down, long-term unemployment coming down, and long-term youth unemployment coming down—and of course, in our growing economy, where our long-term economic plan is working, we see the number of vacancies going up. Hon. Members may be interested to know, in addition, that three quarters of the new jobs over the last year have gone to UK nationals, and also that the employment of Romanians and Bulgarians actually went down in the first three months of this year following the lifting of the controls, which is notable.
	In terms of Pfizer and AstraZeneca, this Government have been absolutely clear that the right thing to do is to get stuck in to seek the best possible guarantees on British jobs, British investment and British science. We discussed this last week and one of the most important things we have learned since then is that the right hon. Gentleman was asked for a meeting with Pfizer, but he said he was too busy political campaigning. He quite literally put party politics ahead of the national interest.

Edward Miliband: I am not going to take any lectures from the guy who was negotiating with Pfizer over the heads of the board of AstraZeneca. Pfizer does not need a public relations man—it has the Prime Minister.
	For Members on both sides of the House, the appearance of Pfizer at a Select Committee raised more questions than it answered about the so-called assurances. The head of Pfizer said there would be a fall in research and development spending as a result of the takeover. Has the Prime Minister got an assurance that those R and D cuts will not take place in the UK?

David Cameron: We want the strongest possible guarantees, but I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman: what is the way of getting those guarantees? Is it getting stuck in with Pfizer and AstraZeneca, battling for the British interest, or is it standing back like him, doing absolutely nothing apart from playing politics? That is the point I put to him. I am clear about what the British interest is: it is British jobs, British science and British R and D, and we will do everything we can to make those guarantees that we have received—the right hon. Gentleman would have got nothing—as firm as possible. As we do so, let us remember that 175,000 people are employed in the life sciences in our country, because we are an open economy that encourages investment. Eli Lilly, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson and e Sci have chosen to come and invest here because it is a great country to come and do business.

Edward Miliband: The problem is that the assurances are “vague”, have “caveats” and are “inappropriate”. Those are not my words, but the words of the president of the Royal Society. The assurances are useless and there is no guarantee on R and D.
	Let us talk about jobs. The head of Pfizer said yesterday:
	“There will be job cuts somewhere”.
	Has the Prime Minister got an assurance that those job cuts will not take place in the UK?

David Cameron: We have assurances on the percentage of R and D that will happen here and on investment in Cambridge and in Macclesfield. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether we want further assurances, then yes, we do. Do we want to make sure those jobs stay here? Yes, we do. Do we want more investment in British universities and British science? Yes, we do. The only difference between us is on how to get those things. I say: get stuck in, negotiate hard and fight for Britain. He says: stand up, play politics and put that before the national interest.

Edward Miliband: But the Prime Minister’s negotiations are not working—they are worthless. On R and D and jobs, he has no answer.
	Let us try the Prime Minister on another issue: the possible carving up of the merged company. Nobody wants the company to be bought, split up and then sold off. Has he got assurances that that will not happen in the case of this takeover?

David Cameron: What we want is a good outcome for British investment and British jobs. We know what happens if you take the approach of the Labour party. Let us remember Kraft and Cadbury. What did we have? We had outright opposition, wonderful speeches about blocking investment and then complete and abject surrender and the closure of plants under Labour. That is what happened. We have learned the lessons of the mistakes Labour made. We are operating under the framework that it left us—which, incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman wrote when he was at the Treasury—and we will get results for British science, British jobs and investment by being engaged rather than standing off and playing politics.

Edward Miliband: We all know what happened the last time the Prime Minister got assurances: he sold off Royal Mail at a knock-down price and the Chancellor’s best man made a killing. That is what happens with the Prime Minister’s assurances.
	The truth is that the Prime Minister cannot give us a guarantee, because the chief executive says that he wants to “conserve the optionality” of splitting up the company and flogging it off. Last week, the Prime Minister said he would judge the takeover on
	“British jobs, British investment and British science.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 146.]
	But he cannot offer us assurances on any of those things. Is it not obvious—he should have a proper test of the public interest, and if the deal does not pass, he should block it?

David Cameron: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman raises this issue about the public interest test. It is worth asking which party, which Government and indeed which individual, when he was sitting in the Treasury writing the rules, got rid of that test. It was the right hon. Gentleman. That is what we see: on a day when unemployment is down, on a day when more people are in work, he will try any trick other than to talk about what is happening in our economy. That is the truth. The country is getting stronger, and he is getting weaker.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister might not think it important to talk about a company that is 2% of UK exports and on which 30,000 jobs depend. It is important: it is crucial to our national interest. The truth is that he is not powerless. He is the Prime Minister, and he could act on a public interest test. We are talking about one of our most important companies. Nobody is convinced by his assurances. Why will he not intervene? Because he is falling back on the old idea that the market always knows best and does not need rules. From Royal Mail to AstraZeneca, this is a Prime Minister whose ideology means that he cannot stand up for the national interest.

David Cameron: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks these companies are important, why did he not meet them, rather than going canvassing? That is what he did: he quite literally put his own party political interest ahead of the national interest. What he fails to understand is that, yes, we measure the British interest in British jobs, British science and British investment, but we also measure it in being a country that is open to overseas investment. There is a reason why companies and countries are coming here to make cars, to build aeroplanes, to build trains, to fabricate oil rigs, to make new drugs in our country—it is because we have cut taxes, we welcome investment, we are growing our economy and we have got more people in work. We will take absolutely no lectures from the people who brought this economy to its knees.

Stephen Gilbert: rose—

Hon. Members: More!

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is delighted to be greeted by such acclamation.

Stephen Gilbert: The sun is shining, and people are wisely preparing to come to Cornwall for their holiday. When they arrive, however, they will see that some of the recent storm damage still has not been put right. Cornwall does not just need a long-term economic plan; we also need help today. Will the Prime Minister meet me to see what more can be done?

David Cameron: I am very happy to go on discussing that with Cornish MPs and indeed the Cornish unitary council to make sure we do everything we can to help Cornwall get back on to its feet after the storms. What I have said very clearly is that there is money under the Bellwin scheme, so all the emergency funding that Cornwall had to spend it can claim back, and it still has time to work on that claim. We have also increased the amount of money going through the Environment Agency to repair storm damage, and there is an opportunity for Cornwall to have a real benefit from that money as well. The sun is shining. I am sure that people are preparing to go to Cornwall and I know, when they get there, they will have a very good time.

Iain McKenzie: This week, the Public Accounts Committee criticised the Ministry of Defence for failing to account for a £1.2 billion underspend, and it went on to say that this might result in even higher spending in future years. Does the Prime Minister still think that he was right to say that he has balanced the books at the MOD?

David Cameron: I seem to remember, coming into government, that we were left with a £38 billion black hole, so if the criticism is that the Secretary of State for Defence is careful with the pounds and the pennies, and makes sure that there is an underspend that can then, on occasion, be carried forward into further investment—to make sure that we have the very best equipment for our troops—I rather suspect that he might plead guilty.

Stephen McPartland: Stevenage continues to lead the economic recovery, and unemployment figures today show that our long-term economic plan is working. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the educational institutions and businesses in my constituency that have increased of apprenticeship starts from just over 200 in 2010 to over 800 a year now?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. In Stevenage, unemployment has fallen by 24% over the past year, which shows that our long-term economic plan is working. Every single one of those people is not just a statistic, but someone who has the dignity, security and peace of mind of a pay packet to help them and their family. Increasing the number of apprenticeships is a vital part of our long-term economic plan. We have seen 1.7 million new apprentices under this Government and are aiming for 2 million. We need to do more to encourage small and medium-sized firms to take on apprentices, but the work is going well.

Alex Cunningham: There has been a 61% increase in the number of working families claiming housing benefit in the Stockton borough. Is that not further proof that the jobs that the Prime Minister claims to have created are generally low-paid, part-time and zero-hours contract jobs that do not pay enough to meet the rent?

David Cameron: In the Stockton North constituency, unemployment has fallen by 23% over the past year. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the unemployment figures, he will see that the number of people in part-time work who want full-time work has fallen as, increasingly, people are able to find the full-time work that they want. Of course there is an increase in the number of people who are in work and claiming housing benefit, because there is an increase in the number of people in work. That is what is happening in our country—we are getting the country back to work.

Mark Harper: The Prime Minister will know that thousands of my constituents in England are forced to use the NHS in Wales. They will be concerned about yesterday’s “Trusted to Care” report, which showed serious failings in the care of frail, older people at two NHS hospitals in Wales. Do not the people of Wales and my constituents deserve better?

David Cameron: Those are very concerning reports that need to be studied, because the NHS in Wales is not in a good state. We have seen an 8% cut to the NHS budget in Wales carried through by Labour. In Wales, the last time the A and E targets were met was in 2009 and the last time the urgent cancer treatment target was met was in 2008. We really do see problems in the NHS
	in Wales. Frankly, the Labour party, instead of chatting to each other on the Front Bench, should get a grip of this issue and sort out the NHS.

Kevin Brennan: The Pfizer boss did give assurances to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee yesterday. He gave an absolute assurance that any takeover of AstraZeneca would result in a fall in research and development in its new drugs in the UK. He gave an absolute assurance that it would result in a fall in UK jobs. The AstraZeneca boss said that it could put lives at risk. How could any Prime Minister worth the title not immediately conclude that the right thing to do in the national interest is to call this in?

David Cameron: As I explained to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), we are operating under the legal framework that was put in place by the Government of whom he was a member. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of what was said yesterday, I think he will find that the quotes that he has given are not accurate.

Andrew Selous: Does the Prime Minister agree that the building of vital roads, such as the A5-M1 link or the Dunstable northern bypass, will create even more jobs, and that continued infrastructure investment like that is a key part of our long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: I agree. I have spent some time in my hon. Friend’s constituency, stuck on the A5, and I know how much that remedial work is needed. It is vital for that part of our country. We are investing more in our railways than at any time since Victorian times and more in our roads than at any time since the 1970s. That is key to the success of our long-term economic plan.

Kerry McCarthy: Is there a good reason why the Prime Minister will not condemn the tax affairs of Tory-supporting Gary Barlow as morally wrong?

David Cameron: I could not have been clearer. I condemn all aggressive tax avoidance schemes—and more than condemning them, this Government have taken legislative action to say to people, to coin a phrase, “We want your money back for good.”

William Cash: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us have a respectful silence for Mr William Cash.

William Cash: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend will know that my International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 came into force last night. Will he note that it will protect women and girls throughout the world and that, furthermore, in places such as Nigeria and Syria, it provides us with an opportunity to do whatever we can to relieve their tragedy? Will he be good enough to have a word with the excellent Secretary of State for International Development and ensure that we will do whatever we can to use the Act to help people who have been so severely afflicted?

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will want to join me in commending my hon. Friend on his Bill, and on his legislative achievement to get that important measure on the statute book. This year Britain is taking some huge steps forward, using the power of our aid budget and the fact that we have met our aid pledge to try to drive change in our world and end for ever the scandals of forced and early marriage and female genital mutilation. We are in a really strong position to drive change on that.
	My hon. Friend mentioned Nigeria, and I can announce that we have offered Nigeria further assistance in terms of surveillance aircraft and a military team to embed with the Nigerian army in its HQ, as well as a team to work with US experts to analyse information on the girls’ location. As I said last week, this was an act of pure evil, and the world is coming together not just to condemn it but to do everything we can to help the Nigerians find these young girls.

Mark Hendrick: Some 50,499 ambulances have waited in queues for at least half an hour at accident and emergency units up and down the country. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

David Cameron: What we are doing about it is making sure that the £12.7 billion extra that we are putting into the NHS—unlike the Labour NHS cut in Wales—is going to good use. We can see in our NHS that 1.2 million more people are attending accident and emergency, and over this winter period we met our targets for accident and emergency. I remember the last time that the Labour leader raised our hospitals at Prime Minister’s questions—it was back in November, and he has not had a word to say about it since. He predicted a winter crisis, and he sat there day after day, dying for it to happen. It did not happen because we have a strong NHS with more doctors and more nurses serving our country.

Greg Mulholland: The Prime Minister is well aware of the wonderful work done by the Royal British Legion Battle Back centre with our brave servicemen and women who have been injured in conflict, through adaptive sports and adventurous training. At the end of this month, I will be joining a team from the Battle Back centre with the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) to raise awareness of that wonderful work. Will the Prime Minister wish us every success in that aim?

David Cameron: I will certainly wish well my hon. Friend and hon. Members from across the House who are taking part in that. The Royal British Legion plays an absolutely key part in our country in standing up for veterans and their interests, and ensuring that we raise money and serve them properly. We work very closely with the Royal British Legion in government, and the Battle Back centre that my hon. Friend mentioned is an extraordinary facility in our country. I wish him well and hope that the fundraising goes well.

Eilidh Whiteford: When the Prime Minister goes up to Scotland later this week, will he explain to our agricultural producers and rural communities why by 2019 we will
	be receiving the lowest level of support per hectare not just of any country in the UK, but of any country in the whole EU? Perhaps that explains why he does not want to publish his secret poll on support for independence.

David Cameron: On my visit to Scotland I will be explaining how Scotland is better off inside the United Kingdom. We have all the negotiating power of the United Kingdom around the table to get a good deal for Scotland, whereas of course an independent Scotland would have to queue up behind other countries to get back into the European Union. Specifically on agriculture, because of the hard work of my right hon. Friend the agriculture Secretary, we are ensuring that there will be extra support for Scottish farmers, which is absolutely in line with what the Scottish Government have been asking for.

Richard Harrington: According to the Watford chamber of commerce, this year Watford will benefit from a total of £1.5 billion in new investment. It has already started: we have a new road, two new train stations, two secondary schools being refitted, and a brand new university technical college. To cap that, today there has been an announcement that the number of unemployed is 667 fewer than a year ago, and I am concerned for that to continue. What is the Prime Minister’s strategy to ensure that it will continue? If he takes my advice, he will come up with something that is one, long term; two, economic; and three, a plan.

David Cameron: First of all, may I say to my hon. Friend how welcome it is that unemployment in Watford in the past year has fallen by 30%? We are getting the people of Watford back to work and cutting unemployment. He mentioned important investments such as the Croxley rail link, with the two new stations, and rebuilding schools and building new ones. They are absolutely vital. The long-term plan is not just about jobs and cutting taxes, important as those are. It is also about supporting business, and small business in particular, by building the infrastructure we need. Because we have taken difficult, long-term decisions, we are able to put that extra investment into our roads and railways to build a modern infrastructure for the 21st century.

Khalid Mahmood: In 2011 the Government stated that the ability to see a general practitioner within 48 hours was not a priority. Does the Prime Minister regret that?

David Cameron: The Royal College of General Practitioners says that there are something like 40 million more GP appointments since 2010. The patient survey, which was always quoted by Labour Ministers, states that 93% of people say that appointments in the GP system are convenient. Frankly, I want more. As the father of three young children, I know how important it is to get timely GP appointments. That is why we are training 5,000 more GPs, why we now have named GPs for frail and elderly people, and why 1,000 GP centres are now open from 8 am to 8 pm and at weekends.
	I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I regret. I regret the fact that the last Labour Government signed a contract with the GPs that meant that they did not have
	to offer a service out of hours or at the weekend. Because of the investment we are putting into the NHS, we are providing better services. If he is wondering about a 48-hour target, he might want to ask why Labour scrapped one in Wales.

Nigel Evans: Ribble Valley council has recently approved its core strategy. Will the Prime Minister reassure local councillors that that will give them extra power to protect those areas within the Ribble Valley that are not already earmarked for development? Will he come and visit the Ribble Valley and see for himself why it is consistently voted one of the best places to live in the United Kingdom, and why local people want to keep it that way?

David Cameron: I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency and constituencies in Lancashire more broadly. The assurance I can give him is this: when local councils put in place their local plan, they will have far greater ability to determine how much housing and what sort of housing they have, and where it goes. That is what we are trying to put in place. The faster local councils can put in their local plans, the more power and responsibility they will have.

Jonathan Reynolds: As the Prime Minister has acknowledged, the number of people who are in work but who have to claim housing benefit to make ends meet is growing, but the cost of that will be an extra £5 billion over the course of this Parliament. Does the Prime Minister consider that a sign of success?

David Cameron: The most important thing we have done with respect to housing benefit was to put a cap on it because, when we came to office, some families were claiming £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000. When we put that cap on housing benefit, what was the Labour reaction? Labour voted against it. When we said that in order to make savings housing benefit should not be paid in respect of spare rooms that people are not using, what was Labour’s attitude? Labour opposed it. That is what is happening.
	The good news from the hon. Gentleman’s seat in Stalybridge and Hyde is that unemployment is not going up—it is down 31%. Of course, some of those people in work are claiming housing benefit, but because of this Government’s long-term economic plan, more of his constituents are in work and earning.

Andrew Percy: Extra flood defence funding for the Humber area following the tidal surge in December was most welcome, but many of my constituents are still out of their homes, and there is concern that we get the £300 million that is needed over the next 25 years. MPs are working cross-party and cross-Humber on that. Will the Prime Minister meet us so that we can convince him of the case for treating the Humber, which is so important to our economic recovery, as a special case given its high risk of flooding?

David Cameron: I have experienced very positive and good meetings with Humberside MPs on a cross-party basis. We worked very hard to ensure that the Siemens investment went into Hull. That will bring not just jobs to that factory, but, I believe, a whole new industry and
	supply chain to the area. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss flooding and other issues to ensure we do all we can to protect people’s homes and businesses.

Tom Clarke: I welcome the efforts to rescue the schoolgirls in Nigeria, but does the Prime Minister agree that the Nigerian Government have not lifted a finger to protect their own citizens in the north when they are attacked by Boko Haram? Will he agree to ask the Nigerian Government to support their own people, and to seek to introduce peace to that unhappy nation?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of overseas development and these affairs. I do not think his description of the Nigerian Government is entirely fair. They face Boko Haram, a very vicious terrorist organisation, and they are investing in and training their armed forces in counter-terrorism abilities. We have worked with them on that and we are willing to do more, particularly if we can ensure that proper processes are in place to deal with human rights issues. We should help across a broad range of areas, not just counter-terrorism, surveillance and helping them to find these people. We should work with the Global Fund for Education to protect more schools—the global fund promoted by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirk—er, and—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown); thank you very much.

David Amess: My mother Maud recently celebrated her 102nd birthday. She was just a child in the first world war, but she thinks it is entirely right that, in the centenary of the outbreak of that great war, we honour those who lost their lives. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we also remember all the horses that were lost, as depicted in the wonderful play “War Horse”?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is not just that wonderful play—Joey the horse came on my recent business trip to China and caused quite a stir—but the magnificent memorial in Park lane to all the animals that died in the war. It is important that we not only commemorate the 100th anniversary appropriately this year, but that we commemorate Gallipoli, Jutland, the armistice and the peace that followed.

Graham Evans: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Points of order will follow the statement by the Secretary of State for International Development. If colleagues wish to wait, they can come in later. May I just appeal to colleagues to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so the House can hear the statement by the Secretary of State?

Hazel Blears: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Exceptionally, I will allow this point of order because I think it is time-sensitive.

Hazel Blears: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful. Perhaps I should declare an interest, having nominated the hon. Member for New Forest East Dr Lewis
	(Dr Lewis) for the post of Chair of the Defence Select Committee. There are a range of excellent candidates and I am very concerned that the window for the election is extremely short—just two hours—and closes at 1 pm. I am worried that if Members turn out in great numbers, as I am sure they will between now and 1 pm, they will not be able to get in to vote. I encourage Members to go and vote for what is a very important position for the future of the Defence Committee.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for that point of order, the answer to which I hope will satisfy the House. If hon. and right hon. Members are visibly queuing to vote, they will be able to vote. I should imagine that that would be what the House wants to hear and that is what is right, so I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I think Mr Hollobone was chancing his arm, but he is not now doing so and we are grateful to him for his forbearance.

Afghanistan

Justine Greening: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on Afghanistan.
	First, I would like to pay tribute to the six service personnel who have died serving their country in Afghanistan since the last statement on Afghanistan was delivered to the House by the Defence Secretary on 10 February. They include Sapper Adam Moralee, who was killed on 5 March while preparing equipment for redeployment out of Afghanistan as part of our military draw-down.
	On 26 April, five UK service personnel—Captain Thomas Clarke, Acting Warrant Officer Class 2 Spencer Faulkner, Corporal James Walters, Flight Lieutenant Rakesh Chauhan and Lance Corporal Oliver Thomas—were tragically killed in a helicopter crash south of Kandahar. A full investigation is under way into the incident, but there is currently no indication of enemy activity being a contributing factor. It was the third biggest single loss of UK life since 2001.
	These deaths are a timely reminder that our troops continue to risk their lives in Afghanistan every single day. Their legacy is realised in the fact that Afghanistan is now neither a safe haven nor a launch-pad for terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life. The tens of thousands of Afghan security forces whom they have helped mentor and who are now securing the country’s future are a testament to that. The sacrifice of our servicemen and women can never be forgotten.
	I would like to reiterate my deepest sympathies for those affected by the tragic landslide in Badakhshan province. Relief efforts are under way to help the more than 4,000 people who have been displaced. The UK is closely monitoring the situation and stands ready to provide further assistance. Our recent £10 million contribution to the UN’s Common Humanitarian Fund will ensure that additional relief supplies can be delivered as required.
	While the scale of the challenge cannot be underestimated, we are seeing some extraordinary progress in Afghanistan. Last month, Afghans took part in provincial and presidential elections, which were organised by Afghans, run by Afghans and the security for which was provided by Afghans. The latest estimates from the preliminary results on voter turnout show that nearly 7 million people voted, 36% of whom were women. This is particularly impressive, given the Taliban threats of violence across the country. With very little support from ISAF—the international security assistance force—the Afghan security forces secured the vast majority of polling centres across the country and helped to prevent any high-profile attacks. Their professionalism and bravery were evident throughout, and their confidence has been boosted by this operational success.
	A constitutional transfer of power from President Karzai to his successor will be a milestone for the Afghan people. Until 10 years ago, Afghans had never had the right to choose their leader. Now they are getting a choice, and the UK Government are supporting that democratic process. We continue to support Afghan institutions in making sure that the elections are credible, inclusive and transparent.
	The Department for International Development is providing £20 million to the UN’s ELECT II programme—Enhancing Legal and Electoral Capacity for Tomorrow—which ran a voter registration top-up exercise in Afghanistan. This has led to over 3.8 million new registered voters, over a third of whom were women. ELECT II also trained almost 7,000 election commission officials, over 2,000 of whom are women. This includes gender officers for each of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces.
	Women’s political participation has been a priority for the UK Government in the past year, and it was impressive to see so many women exercising their democratic rights as voters. Although there were no female presidential candidates, it is a sign of how much Afghanistan has changed that three women stood as second vice-president on presidential tickets, and 297 women contested the provincial council elections. The Government’s support for women voters and candidates, through the UN and through DFID’s own programmes, will continue through to the parliamentary elections in Afghanistan in 2015.
	We have made it clear that our commitment to Afghanistan extends beyond the time that UK combat forces have returned home. The UK has committed to its current level of development funding until at least 2017. However, if we are to continue our co-operation with Afghanistan in the long term, it is important for the bilateral security and NATO status of forces agreements to be established as quickly as possible. We shall expect to see clear progress and further reforms from the new Afghan President and his Government.
	Afghanistan’s economy remains fragile and vulnerable to shocks. Although economic growth and tax revenues have increased substantially over the past decade, uncertainty ahead of the elections, along with the impact of the draw-down of international forces, has led to an economic slowdown in recent months. Through its continued support for Afghanistan’s economic growth and private sector development in the years ahead, DFID will seek to remove barriers to investment, particularly in the agriculture and extractive sectors, and to create economic opportunities for women. The UK will also continue to support greater regional economic integration through infrastructure development and trade.
	We hope that the new President will prioritise increasing domestic revenue collection and strengthening the economy by, for instance, passing key legislation, because that is the best way to ensure that the country’s long-term future does not rely on aid from other countries. At an early stage, the UK will be encouraging the new Government to take the further steps on reform that the international community wants to see, such as tackling corruption and ensuring that gains made on women’s rights are strengthened. Some of the bravest Afghans I have met have been women’s rights defenders. Those women risk their lives daily, fighting for rights that men—and, indeed, we women—often take for granted in this country, and the UK Government will continue to support their efforts to secure a better future for Afghan women and girls.
	We cannot do this alone. Afghanistan’s future depends on many international actors playing their part, as well as the work that Afghans themselves are doing to secure their country’s future. Afghanistan will inevitably be a key feature of the NATO summit which will take place at the Celtic Manor in Wales in early September. Plans and preparations are well under way for that important
	NATO event. The UK Government will co-chair a development conference on Afghanistan in the months after the new Afghan Government have been formed, which will provide a timely opportunity for us to focus Afghan and international attention on the long-term economic, social and political challenges that Afghanistan must address.
	The turnout for last month’s election shows the will and determination of the Afghan people to secure a better future, but they need our support. By continuing our essential development work and by working together, we can create a stable country where Afghan children have opportunities that were denied to their parents. That will be a fitting and lasting legacy to the service of our troops—those who are now returning home to their families and those who, tragically, are not.

Jim Murphy: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for giving me advance sight of it earlier today.
	This year the United Kingdom’s combat mission in Afghanistan comes to an end, and I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the UK service personnel who have been lost in the service of our country. As we approach the close of a 13-year operation, there will be time for reflection on what has been achieved in Afghanistan, but, regardless of those discussions, no one can feel anything other than awe and admiration for the men and women of our armed forces who have served, and continue to serve, our country there. Their courage, their care and their sacrifice are virtues that we should never forget, and the strain on their families and loved ones constitutes a toll that most of us whose relations are not serving in Afghanistan can never fully understand. Just this week, we had a stark reminder that the pain of conflict is not only physical but, increasingly, an often initially invisible injury to mental health.
	In this the centenary year of the first world war, new monuments will be built and tributes will be paid to the dead of three generations ago, but I want to ask about a permanent memorial to those who have died in Afghanistan. I have readily been involved in supporting that project, and I hope that the Secretary of State will update the House on the dedication of that important work.
	As we all know, the Department for International Development works in some of the most dangerous and demanding places in the world, and Afghanistan presents its own set of unique challenges. For more than 30 years, the Afghan people have seen their communities blighted by conflict and violence. Thirteen of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces report at least one Taliban attack each and every day of the week; nearly half the population is in need of development assistance, and a third of the population is food-insecure, so there is no doubt that development in these circumstances is extremely challenging. The Opposition’s approach will continue to be support for and scrutiny of the Government’s work, and I want to ask the Secretary of State about four specific areas.
	First, the Secretary of State rightly spoke about the massive mudslide in Badakhshan province in which 2,000 lives were lost. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, she rightly prioritised the safety and well-being of survivors, but will she now tell the House what
	assessment her Department has made of the needs of those who survived and, further, what impact, if any, security concerns have on the relief effort?
	Secondly, in March this year the Independent Commission for Aid Impact reported on DFID’s bilateral support for growth and livelihoods in Afghanistan. The report raised serious doubts over the long-term sustainability of the progress made and over a lack of strategic coherence, so what steps has the Secretary of State taken to improve the Department’s programmes in the light of those revelations?
	Surprisingly, ICAI found that none of the programmes assessed had made any plans for draw-downs, even though, to quote from the report,
	“it is likely that they would be affected by more instability and greater risk.”
	Can the Secretary of State assure the House that preparations are now well under way in all DFID projects for the impact of this year’s draw-down?
	The report made three main recommendations: for a six-month review of current and future projects, and on systems of consultations and independent monitoring. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress she has made in fulfilling those recommendations?
	I want to turn to the country’s future and the role of women. As the Secretary of State has rightly said, there has been much change for women in the last 13 years, but there is undoubtedly still an incredibly long way to go. It is right that DFID’s next operational plan has a commitment to tackle violence against women, and I hope she will confirm today that Afghan women’s organisations will be consulted on that plan.
	As we approach the second round of presidential elections, the Taliban have this week announced the start of their annual summer offensive. Despite that and despite all the threats, Afghanistan’s women seem determined that their voices and their votes will be heard, so what additional measures have been put in place to protect Afghan women’s right to vote?
	Finally, may I turn to the mechanics of the draw-down? Understandably, there are some concerns that the draw-down of the ISAF operation could have grave implications for the sustainability of development gains and the protection of civilians. What assessment has the Department made of the possible need for any extra security requirements for DFID staff and local partners after the military draw-down?
	In conclusion, stability in Afghanistan will no longer rely on international military might, but instead on Afghan forces, an improving local economy, the attitude of neighbouring countries and international development funding. DFID staff and their partners will have a continuing role to play in the future of that country. For the sake of the people of Afghanistan, and all the Britons who have served there and continue to serve, this military draw-down must not mean turning away. For all their sakes, the UK’s commitment to building a lasting peace and a viable state must continue.

Justine Greening: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. The first point he raised was how we can make sure we never forget the sacrifice that has been made by our servicemen and women who have served in Afghanistan. I understand that discussions on how we can make sure we commemorate and remember
	that work are under way in the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure it will have further updates to give the House shortly.
	In relation to the work ICAI did on DFID programmes in Afghanistan, I think the first point to make is that it recognises, as we do, that Afghanistan is one of the most difficult places in the world to deliver aid. However, it said that we worked effectively with our partners, and, indeed, that
	“our livelihoods programmes are delivering significant improvements to thousands of people”,
	although the right hon. Gentleman raised some of the serious challenges we still face in making sure that the gains and advances we have made continue. It is probably worth pointing out that some of the training on vocational education has helped about 70,000 young people get into work in Afghanistan. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the livelihoods issue is one of the core elements of the programme going forward.
	We will work on the ICAI recommendations in the report and any that the IDC has made recently.
	On the terrible mudslide and flooding around Badakhshan, the UN is working there on the ground. As the right hon. Gentleman points out, some areas in Afghanistan are harder for aid agencies to reach than others, but we have already made a £10 million contribution to the common humanitarian fund, and we stand ready to assess any further requests. Our current assessment is that adequate support is getting through to people, but he is right to point out that looking forward, we need to see what we can do to help the people who remain rebuild their lives and get them back on track.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the work on women’s rights. As everyone recognises, this issue presents one of the biggest risks: as troop draw-down takes place and Afghanistan transitions to a future in which it takes responsibility for its own security, and a presidential election results in a new President, it is important that this aspect of progress—the advancement of women’s rights in a country that remains one of the toughest places in the world to be a woman—is not left behind. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have made this issue a strategic priority for DFID within Afghanistan. We are undertaking a variety of projects that will continue in the coming years, such as the girls’ education project, and we will support the Government to make sure that the law on the elimination of violence against women is implemented on the ground. That will include working with the Ministry of the Interior and directly with the Afghan police, so that we can make sure that laws are implemented by them and they play their role in protecting and upholding women’s rights on the ground.
	As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and as I mentioned in my statement, we have done work on women’s political participation. One of the most encouraging aspects of the recent first round of presidential elections—alongside perhaps less violence than we might have expected—was the number of women who are now exercising their right to vote. DFID played a role in the United Nations Development Programme, supporting the independent election commission, and on the ground in encouraging people to use their vote. In particular, it
	helped to ensure that women were registered, and that women candidates were supported and understood that they could be not just a voter within the election, but a participant. Some 300 women candidates came forward, and 20% of the provincial election council places will go to women after the election.
	We are also ramping up our work on access to justice. We have teamed up with the existing Australian Government programme—a £3 million programme that will mean that we can provide better access to justice for women in six provinces. Of course, the existing Tawanmandi programme, which supports civil society organisations on the ground, continues. I am putting an extra £2 million into that, which should help to provide at least 10 grants to organisations that are focused on working to tackle violence against women.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of draw-down and security. Obviously, I cannot go into the details of that in the House, but he is right to point out that the environment faced not just by our forces but by Foreign Office and DFID staff working in Afghanistan is highly risky, even in the British embassy in Kabul. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those staff members, who do an immensely challenging job in difficult circumstances and are some of the most dedicated people I have come across in this job. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that duty of care to our staff is always of paramount importance.

Malcolm Bruce: I thank the Secretary of State very much indeed not just for her statement but for its positive character and for the fact that she is making it, because that indicates DFID’s increasing importance and profile as Afghanistan moves from a situation of troop engagement to development. I want to reinforce the International Development Committee’s view that the test of success in development in Afghanistan will be the progress maintained by women. Indeed, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for emphasising women’s rights and development. Does she agree with me and our Committee that the status of women will be the key to Afghan development, that it is important that women are supported, that all the people of Afghanistan must understand that the progress of women will determine the successful development of their country, and that in that, they will have the full partnership of the UK Government?

Justine Greening: I pay tribute to the work the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee does in scrutinising my Department and the work we do in Afghanistan. I can assure him that we will continue to play our role, as a key donor, in helping the Afghanistan Government to continue to make progress on women’s rights. It is fantastic that we now have a statutory duty to look at gender equality in international development, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), so we will continue to do that work. His legislation has sent a message across the world about the UK’s stance on the rights of women and girls, and it will permeate our entire work.

Dai Havard: As the Secretary of State may know, I am leading for the Defence Committee until we have the outcome of the election that everybody is awaiting with bated breath.
	We have produced our latest report on Afghanistan, which was published yesterday. It makes a number of recommendations, including two major ones. The first is that we continue to have a proper, co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to the process of transition and its aftermath, in what is likely to be an uneven peace, uneven development and an uneven security situation. The second is that there should be a national evaluation, across government, of the whole of the period in which we have been in Afghanistan. Although our reports are aimed largely at the Ministry of Defence, which will respond on the lessons learned, this is a cross-government issue, so will the right hon. Lady also be able to respond, as the Secretary of State for International Development, to our report?

Justine Greening: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have sought to work hand in hand with the Ministry of Defence on policy in Whitehall, but also on the ground where MOD and DFID staff operate together. We have seen that in the provincial reconstruction team, which until March was based in Helmand and has now transitioned staff back to Kabul. There are of course continuing lessons to be learned, as his Committee’s report highlights. The military have a highly effective process for identifying lessons to be learned in the long term, but I am sure the UK Government will want to look strategically across the whole campaign, including the DFID element of the work we have done, to see what lessons can be learned once the mission is over.

Mr Speaker: Order. Nobody can deny that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) used his temporary leadership opportunity comprehensively, and I hope he is satisfied with the result. Mr William Cash.

William Cash: In my earlier question to the Prime Minister, I mentioned Nigeria and Syria, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear today, Afghanistan is also right at the top of the tree regarding gender equality and international development, and I am grateful to her for her remarks. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank not only her but the staff in her Department, the Minister of State and others for playing an active and very supportive role on this issue. That extends to the whole House, including members of the Opposition, who gave their support to the International Development (Gender Equality) Bill to ensure that it went through Parliament. I thank them all very much indeed, because it will do a huge amount to help women and girls throughout the world.

Justine Greening: It was a wonderful message that we sent out: that not just the Government but the whole of our Parliament regards the issue of women and girls’ rights and prospects as so important to what we are doing. It is fantastic that my hon. Friend has put his thanks on the record, and in fact, most of our thanks go to him for developing the Bill and taking it through.

Sandra Osborne: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the 297 humanitarian workers in Afghanistan, men and women, who lost their lives in 2002, many of whom were Afghans but also from the expatriate community?
	In order to continue that valuable work in a deteriorating security situation, measures must be taken to protect human rights defenders. What is the Secretary of State doing about that?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. A lot of the UK Government’s work has been on prevention: improving the underlying conditions for women in Afghanistan. Of course other countries, for example, the United States and Canada, have also focused on helping women who have already suffered physical violence. I assure her that we will continue to work at the national level with the new Government and the new President who will be in place after the elections are finally concluded. We will also work at the provincial level and we will continue, through programmes such as Tawanmandi, to work at the grass-roots level with these organisations, whose people I have met both here and in Afghanistan, to do what we can at an individual community-based level to make sure that those women are supported and can get on with their work. As she points out, some of these people pay the ultimate price. I met someone who was over in London recently who said that she would be happy to lose her life if that is what it took for women’s prospects in Afghanistan to improve in the long term. That was an amazing statement for her to make, and the UK Government will certainly play their role in trying to ensure that people can go about that work safely.

James Duddridge: The Secretary of State identified the importance of economic development and of revenue collection. I know that DFID and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs support a number of countries around the world on the revenue development side. Has that been considered for Afghanistan? Is it already happening?

Justine Greening: It is already happening; we are doing work with the tax revenue authority of Afghanistan. The good news is that since 2004-05 tax revenues increased from just $250 million to more than $2 billion by 2011-12. So things are moving in the right direction and we will continue that work.

Jim Shannon: Encouragingly, the Afghan security forces have grown in stature and in strength. It is important that Apache helicopter support is equally strong, so that the actions on the ground and in the air can be equal. What support for helicopter training will be given to Afghan security forces, and will the international security assistance force leave its Apache helicopters behind for the forces to use?

Justine Greening: Clearly this issue of going beyond training troops to making sure there is the capability alongside them to support them in the air as well as on the ground continues to be discussed. We are discussing how that can be sustained post-2014. Obviously, that sits alongside the work we are doing to set up the Afghan national army officer academy, which took in its first battalion of officers back in October. This legacy will see a continued improvement and numbers of well-trained army officers coming through, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that an equipment and logistics strategy needs to sit alongside it.

Mike Freer: The participation of women in the electoral process is to be welcomed, and I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment on that. What commitments have we secured on access to education for women and girls once we have withdrawn?

Justine Greening: I have spoken on a number of occasions with President Karzai about how important education is, and he is emphatic that he sees providing it as the biggest thing we can do, long term, to improve the prospects for women in Afghanistan. That is why on my most recent visit there last November I announced further investment by the UK Government to reach about a quarter of a million girls in some of the hardest-to-reach areas to get them into education. This will certainly continue to be a key part of what we work on.

Derek Twigg: As the Secretary of State is aware, the poppy crop is an important source of funding for criminal and insurgency networks. What progress is her Department making on persuading farmers towards alternatives, particularly in Helmand province?

Justine Greening: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, getting successful long-term change in that area is extremely challenging work for us. Fundamentally, we need to see security on the ground and then alternative livelihoods that prove more compelling prospects for farmers. The reality is that that is an extremely long-term programme. We will continue to do our work on livelihoods, which ICAI recognised was having a significant impact, but nobody is under any illusion about the scale of the challenge.

Martin Horwood: May I echo the Secretary of State’s tribute to those whose courage and sacrifice has been shown in Afghanistan, including those, such as Corporal Daniel Nield of my constituency, who died there, and all the armed forces, civilians and intelligence staff who have served in that country? Underpinning the progress of women’s participation, which she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) spoke about, has been the enormous sixfold increase in the participation of children in Afghan schools—now 40% of them are girls. Does she agree that a whole generation of Afghan girls owe their thanks not only to their Afghan teachers, policy makers and the international community, but to this country, for transforming their life chances?

Justine Greening: I agree with that. When the Taliban were in power almost no girls were going to school, whereas now more than 2 million of the 6 million-plus children at school are girls. That is crucial, but, as we see, it continues to be a challenge to make sure that we get equal opportunities for both boys and girls in Afghanistan. That is why our education programmes particularly focus on getting girls into school.

Keith Vaz: Twenty Afghan interpreters have died while serving with British troops and 3% feel they are going to be unsafe if they remain in Afghanistan after the troops withdraw. How many have applied to come here since the Secretary of State’s last statement? How many have been given permission to do so? How many have been refused?

Justine Greening: I do not have those details with me, but I am happy to provide them to the right hon. Gentleman after this statement. As he will be aware, we looked particularly at the issue of interpreters and, more broadly, local staff who are intimidated and at risk as a result of being part of our efforts to help bring security and stability to Afghanistan. We have a very thorough process for making sure that where there is extreme risk of intimidation we are able to take further steps that go beyond simply helping people get into different work in Afghanistan to potentially relocating them. What I propose to do is send him a short note updating him on what we are doing for interpreters, and the extent of progress and use of that scheme.

Roger Williams: Afghan electoral law requires a run-off election if no candidate achieves more than 50% in the presidential election. The run-off election has already been postponed and it has been suggested that it might not need to take place if one of the candidates can develop a majority coalition. Does the Secretary of State agree that the rule of law should prevail and the run-off election should take place? What can her Department do to ensure that that happens?

Justine Greening: We all want to make sure that the electoral process happens effectively, and I talked about the need for it to be fair, inclusive and transparent. DFID has done a huge amount of work with other donors supporting the United Nations programme to make sure that that can happen. We will all have to see what happens on the second round of the presidential election, but what we can say from the first round is that, basically, the process worked: most of the polling stations were open as planned; people were able to get to them and to cast their vote; and where there were complaints those are now being assessed by the complaints commission. That is a good first step but, as the hon. Gentleman points out, there are challenges ahead. We will continue to do what we can to make sure that those presidential elections are successful.

Mike Gapes: The long-term security and development of Afghanistan is very much influenced by the regional context and Afghanistan’s neighbours. Given that there will be a change of Government in India on Friday, will the Secretary of State speak with her colleagues in other Departments to try to impress upon India and Pakistan the importance of resolving regional security issues, as that would be of great benefit to Afghanistan in the long term?

Justine Greening: I met the Prime Minister of Pakistan a couple of weeks ago when he was visiting the UK and I raised with him the issue of the importance of this relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan and, in particular, of improving it. That applies both from a political and security perspective, which is crucial, and because of the economic opportunities that are there for both countries if they can get stability and then start to grow the economic relationship. That also stands true for India, and I have no doubt that my colleagues in the Foreign Office will follow up on the point the hon. Gentleman has made.

Philip Hollobone: May I, too, ask about poppy growing? My constituents in Kettering wish to know what has been done, what is being done and what can and cannot be done to tackle poppy growing without endangering fragile local economies in Afghanistan, which remains the major source of heroin that comes into the western world.

Justine Greening: Principally, there are two strands of work in which DFID has been engaged. One has been to work alongside the Home Office on a counter-narcotics strategy that has involved working with the Afghan police and the security services. The second is the work on livelihoods. We all recognise how difficult it is to get communities to change practices and livelihoods in which they have been engaged for so long. We have undertaken work in this area, but recognise that more needs to be done, which is why we want to stick with this for the long term.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State and her Department will be aware of the huge mineral reserves and resources that exist in Afghanistan. What discussions has she had with the Administration in Kabul about the distribution of licences for the exploitation of those resources, what benefits are there for local people, and who in the long term will get the riches out of Afghanistan?

Justine Greening: That is an important question. We have seen in other countries how mineral extraction has filled the pockets of the few and how the opportunity for shared prosperity has been missed. We do not want to see that happen in Afghanistan. The value of minerals in Afghanistan is estimated to range from $2 trillion to $3 trillion. There is a huge opportunity there. DFID has worked with the Afghan Ministry of Mines on the minerals law, which has, I think, now passed through Parliament. That should provide a legal framework for responsible investment. We will be doing further work to ensure that those concessions that the Government give are ones that ensure not only that companies profit from extracting minerals but that Afghanistan itself starts to reap the rewards of having those resources.

Jeremy Lefroy: In a recent debate in the House, Members raised the important correlation between inclusive economic growth and respect for all human rights, including freedom of thought and belief. What discussions have my right hon. Friend and her colleagues had with the Afghan Government about that important relationship in respect of economic development?

Justine Greening: We talked more broadly about the economic and social progress that Afghanistan needs to continue to make, which includes people’s human rights. Obviously, a constitution is in place now. Part of the Tokyo mutual accountability framework was all about ensuring that that constitution gets implemented and holds for individuals in their daily lives on the ground. It is good that, two years on from that Tokyo meeting, we are having a ministerial meeting to look at development. We need to see not only that donors are living up to the commitments that they made—the UK is—but that the Afghan Government are getting on with the process of
	reform, economic development and security improvements, not least of which is the final signing of the bilateral security agreement.

Stephen Doughty: The Secretary of State mentioned the upcoming NATO summit in south Wales and the inevitable focus on Afghanistan at that summit. She will no doubt be aware of the significant Afghan diaspora communities in south Wales. What discussions has she had about outreach and the potential engagement of those communities, many of which are making a massive contribution not only to communities in south Wales, but to peace, development and stability in Afghanistan? Perhaps her officials will meet me to discuss how we can take that matter forward.

Justine Greening: That is an excellent suggestion. We are working across Government in preparation for the NATO summit. It is fantastic that we are hosting it, and that we are hosting it in Wales. I very much want to make the most of that opportunity to reach out to those diaspora groups that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

Stephen McCabe: The Commission for Aid Impact gave an amber-red rating for a third of the projects, including the growth in livelihood project, which is relatively poor. Does the Secretary of State think that there is an argument for looking again at the process by which development officers identify, select and allocate funding to those projects?

Justine Greening: One thing I have tried to strengthen in DFID is programme management capability, which includes the way in which and the speed with which we respond to programmes that are not on track. We look at Afghanistan, and other such places, because it is such a challenging environment for us to deliver and monitor projects while they are happening on the ground. The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly good point, and I can assure him that this is a good time for us to look at our Afghanistan programme given the transition that has taken place in the delivery of our projects—some of our projects used the provincial reconstruction team in Helmand, but now we have retrenched within Kabul. I assure him that we are now planning ahead to understand what the next three-year outlook should be for our livelihoods programmes and to make them a success.

James Morris: The Secretary of State is right to emphasise the importance of regional economic integration for the future of Afghanistan. Will she say a bit more about how the UK Government can influence regional players to ensure that that integration becomes a reality?

Justine Greening: The Foreign Office has played an important role in bringing together Afghanistan and Pakistan in so-called trilateral talks, which were hosted here in the UK. Our Prime Minister led those talks with the Prime Minister of Pakistan and President Karzai of Afghanistan. That gives us a good platform for playing a constructive role. My Department is talking with countries in the region about their infrastructure needs, which will potentially provide the backbone for economic growth to take place successfully.

Gregory Campbell: Progress has undoubtedly been made in Afghanistan, and one can only hope and pray that, in the years to come, the sacrifice of our brave service personnel will not be forgotten. The Secretary of State quite rightly alluded to the participation of females. She talked about 297 women contesting provincial council elections, but she did not say how many candidates there were in total.

Justine Greening: I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that information. Something like 480-plus council places were being contested as part of the elections. A minimum of 20 will go to women, so we expect at least 92 women to have been elected. I will provide him with an update of the male aspect of those elections once I get back to my Department.

Charles Walker: The Secretary of State recognises the enormous social and economic progress made in Afghanistan. Therefore, can we once again pay tribute to our armed forces for the selfless sacrifices they have made over the past decade to make that progress possible?

Justine Greening: We can never say thank you enough to our servicemen and women for their efforts and work. I have had the privilege of meeting them when I have been out in Afghanistan. It is not just what they do but the way that they go about it—their professionalism, their attitude. They really represent the cream of our country. I think they have done an amazing job. They have been working in a country that has seen so much conflict for so many decades, and are finally starting to get it on track for a long-term better future. We can be immensely proud of the role that our armed forces have played.

Michael McCann: I also pay tribute and associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments about our armed forces personnel, including those that have
	made the ultimate sacrifice. My constituent, Sergeant Gary Jamieson, lost three limbs in an improvised explosive device attack only six days after arriving in Afghanistan. In 2012 the International Development Committee visited Afghanistan, and we were disappointed to see that a lot of DFID staff were deskbound for security reasons. That inevitably affects our ability to measure progress on the ground. Has that situation improved?

Justine Greening: I have also considered what steps we can take to enable our staff to be better placed to get out in the field and monitor projects. We do as much as we can but, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, duty of care and making sure our staff are safe is of paramount importance. We must take that into account when designing our programmes, so that we understand what the risks are in relation to our challenges of monitoring and evaluation and we amend our programmes accordingly.

Susan Elan Jones: I know that the Secretary of State will share the concern of many of us that the number of women and girls who have been killed and injured in Afghanistan has increased, possibly threefold in targeted areas. Why does she think that is and what measures has her Department put in place to help tackle this awful crime?

Justine Greening: On the ground in Afghanistan we see a continued daily physical threat to many people all over the country, whether they are a journalist, as we saw recently in Kabul, part of the security service or the army, or a woman. The challenge is to ensure that although we still see such challenges we do not back off from trying to tackle them. We know that the Taliban needs to engage in the peace and reconciliation process if we are to see long-term stability for Afghanistan. Ultimately, DFID can continue to help create the best possible conditions on the ground for women to play a role, take part in elections, have a voice in their community and have the chance of education and employment. That is the role that we can play.

Points of Order

Charles Walker: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the vexed issue of appropriate workplace grievance procedures, what colleagues across the House need is a funding mechanism contained within their office budget that allows them and their staff to access independent dispute mediation services that are entirely separate from the House of Commons and its political parties. Will you kindly promote this need further in your routine discussions with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Members’ personal advice service?

Mr Speaker: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughts on all matters and he has encapsulated them very pithily in that point of order. The issue of the grievance procedure is ongoing and is the subject of much wider discussions, so I think the fairest thing for me to say today is that I have noted what he has said. The Leader of the House will have done so, too, and I feel sure that there will be further opportunities for those concerns and alternative ideas to be aired. I hope that that is helpful.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order with some reluctance. There are rumours running across the House that a decision has been made or is about to be made that the security of the House of Commons will be turned over from the Metropolitan police to a private provider, such as G4S. As this rumour has been in the newspapers and is running around the Palace of Westminster, can you put our minds at rest that it has not and will not be decided?

Mr Speaker: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House for 35 years this month, that we simply do not discuss security matters on the Floor of the House. I say to him in all candour and amiability that if he wants to discuss such matters we can do so, but we do not do so on the Floor of the Chamber. Suffice it to say that I know about these matters and am very comfortable about the interests of the House, and I know that the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House also know about these matters. We are all very sanguine. It would be irresponsible to get into a discussion of these matters on the Floor of the House and whatever sedulous temptations are lobbed my way I do not intend to do so. I am sorry, but we must leave it there.

Graham Evans: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order raised earlier in the week by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), I would like to raise the issue of Members visiting other constituencies on parliamentary or official business. I know that you have spoken in the past of this matter and of your
	disappointment that prior and timely notification is not always given by colleagues. In recent months, no fewer than five shadow Ministers have visited my constituency without giving notice. I have raised this issue on a case-by-case basis with them and, indeed, had a meeting with the shadow Chief Whip, but this discourtesy continues. I do not wish to name the Members involved, but in the interests of clarity I should be grateful if you would remind the Opposition that parliamentary convention dictates that prior and timely notification is required from all colleagues.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. For the avoidance of doubt, let me just say that this matter has regularly been raised by Members on both sides of the House, frequently referring to Members on the other side of the House. As Members would expect, I am being strictly and scrupulously impartial and this is not a question of one side needing to get the message rather than the other. The convention is, I think, clear. If an hon. Member is visiting the constituency of another hon. Member on parliamentary or official business, in which category I include party political business, there is an obligation to notify the Member whose constituency is to be visited and to do so in a timely way. I appeal to Members on both sides of the House faithfully to adhere to that convention and in that spirit I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point and for doing so in the way that he has.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said in response to a question from me, “I think he will find that the quotes that he has given are not accurate.” First, I did not read out any quotes in my question, and secondly, what I reported to the House about what the head of Pfizer said about job losses and cuts in research following a takeover is entirely accurate. Do we have any redress when the Prime Minister thinks that he can casually traduce an hon. Member just because the facts are inconvenient to him?

Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is continuing the debate. He is doing his best to suppress a puckish grin, as he is perfectly well aware that such redress as he sought has just been made available to him through his use—some might say abuse—of the points of order procedure. I think we will leave it there for today. By the way, the hon. Gentleman says that he has been traduced. I have known him for 13 years and have never regarded him as a particularly delicate or sensitive soul and he bears no scar as far as I can tell—[Interruption.] No more than the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) feels any scar, I suspect, from our robust exchange earlier. He is a good-natured colleague and I think he understands the spirit in which proceedings need to be conducted and the importance of making progress. It is good to see him back in his seat.

Food Labelling (Sugar Content)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Keith Vaz: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that sugar content on food labelling be represented in terms of the number of 5ml spoonsful per 100g; and for connected purposes.
	The intention of the Bill is simple: to have the number of teaspoons of sugar contained in a food product clearly displayed on the front of the packaging. I declare my interest as a type 2 diabetic. I am glad to see the Minister responsible for public health and the shadow Minister responsible for public health in their places today.
	Sugar is a killer. High-sugar diets are the main contributor to two of the most serious health risks facing the United Kingdom today: obesity and diabetes. People are simply not aware of the amount of sugar they are eating. Our annual sugar intake is 33.7 kg per capita, which is equivalent to eating nearly 34 average-sized bags of sugar each year. That is 15.4 kg higher than the world average and the United Kingdom is the 18th largest consumer of sugar in the world.
	The dangers of sugar have been known for many years, but fragmented regulation and successive Governments’ reluctance to act have led to a distinct lack of progress. In 1972, John Yudkin wrote a fascinating book entitled “Pure, White and Deadly”. As the name suggests, the book presents a startling account of how sugar is killing us, addresses why people are so addicted to it and explains that if we do not change our habits we face a crisis. Seen as controversial at the time, Mr Yudkin’s text was bought back into print in 2012 with a foreword from childhood obesity expert Dr Robert Lustig, who viewed the book as prophetic. It seems that there is and has been for many years a widespread desire to remain ignorant of the dangers of sugar, perhaps in the hope that they will cease to exist.
	The UK is facing an epidemic of diabetes and obesity. The statistics are alarming. Each year, 59,000 people die unnecessarily as a result. Obesity and diabetes-related illnesses combined cost the NHS an estimated £15 billion a year. Health and nutrition experts involved in Action on Sugar led by Professor Graham MacGregor and Dr Aseem Malhotra recently met with and warned the Secretary of State that the cost is likely to rise to £50 billion a year. For diabetes, 80% of the available funding is spent treating preventable complications. If the number of people with diabetes continues to rise at the current rate, it is estimated that in 10 years’ time 5 million British people will have diabetes.
	It is clear that, contrary to what Mary Poppins promised, a spoonful of sugar will not help the medicine go down; it will result in people needing more and more medicines. There is a huge knock-on effect of eating too much sugar, given that diabetes and obesity increase vulnerability to other health conditions. In an article in The Spectator, Dr Max Pemberton said:
	“As a doctor . . . I’d rather have HIV than diabetes.”
	Comparing HIV to my own condition really brought home its severity. Dr Pemberton believes that diabetes sufferers and those treating them are complacent about
	the condition because of a lack of communication about its dangers. Dr Charles Alessi, chair of the National Association of Primary Care, and Professor John Deanfield of University College London warned recently about the higher risks of diabetes sufferers getting dementia.
	The responsibility deal was introduced by the Government in 2011, with the aim of reducing calorie intake by 5 billion a year. Although many companies signed up to the voluntary pledge, there is no legal responsibility to act on their words. Sugar is not even mentioned as one of the benchmarks. Binding legislation, together with the inclusion of sugar labelling, would be much more effective. The Government have acknowledged the huge costs that knock-on health issues caused by excessive sugar consumption bring to the NHS. However, there is no clear action plan towards achieving these laudable aims.
	Many retailers make a huge contribution to the problem. For example, WH Smith should be ashamed of itself for forcing its staff to harass customers at the counter to purchase endless chocolate bars. Let us take my weekly stop at junction 15 on the M1 at the Welcome Break in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). There, an embarrassed shop assistant offers me two chocolate bars for the price of one each time I buy a newspaper. Lidl, to give it credit, has removed sweets from the checkout. I am delighted to tell the House that last week our Tea Room offered only fruit as the last stop before the till, after years of there being only chocolate on offer.
	There is still more that retailers can do. Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Morrisons should lead the way with their own brands offering more no-sugar alternatives. They should also bring in clearer signage in supermarkets, which could focus the minds of shoppers on purchasing healthier products. There should be better layout in shops. Fixtures such as carousels should display only sugar-free products, as is currently done for gluten-free, kosher and sometimes halal foods. That would help busy people locate healthier options much more quickly.
	Let us all take one more step in the war on sugar and commit to one sugar-free day a week. When I asked the Prime Minister to do this, as the House may recall, he said he would attempt to do this after asking Mrs Cameron. I intend to table a parliamentary question to see how he fared.
	Labelling of food and drinks has improved. All packaged products are required to display a list of fat, saturated fat, calories and carbohydrates in grams, with the percentage of the recommended daily allowance that that constitutes. Many companies, such as Waitrose, have adopted a traffic light system on the front of packaging to allow customers easily to see how healthy a product is by the colour. However, products marketed as low-fat often have a very high sugar content to compensate for the flavour lost in the reduction of fat. A typical low-fat yoghurt contains five teaspoons of sugar, muesli can contain eight teaspoons, a can of coke contains seven teaspoons and a caramel frappuccino sold in cafés near the House contains around 11 teaspoons of sugar. Mr Speaker, could you imagine eating a stack of 11 sugar cubes as you sit in the Chair today, or this week when your and your son Oliver’s beloved Arsenal seek to win their first silverware in nine years? Imagine eating 11 cubes of sugar as you watch that final at Wembley.
	I commend newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Express for producing special pull-out charts with information on how many teaspoons of sugar there are in each product. Every household should have such a chart. The main problem with our existing system is that the information on the back of packaging is so small. Unless people are like Gillian McKeith and are attentive to the contents of everything they consume, they are not likely to go around the supermarket with a magnifying glass and a calculator to check the contents of a product. It is not realistic to expect people to work out that one sugar cube weighs around 2.3 grams and to calculate how much sugar a product contains. Sugar labelling with a clear teaspoon sign fills a void that currently exists in people’s understanding. It will expose how much sugar is in each product.
	Our country is facing an epidemic as a result of excessive high-sugar diets. People must wake up to the dangers of this addictive and poisonous foodstuff before it is too late. Reforming packaging could help millions of people to improve their health, extend their lives and manage existing medical conditions, and significantly reduce costs to the NHS. Sugar is toxic. It is essential that we act, and I hope the House will support this Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Keith Vaz, Caroline Lucas, Mark Durkan, Ann Clwyd, Jim Shannon, Sarah Champion, Dr Julian Huppert, Neil Carmichael, Phil Wilson, Mark Pritchard, Valerie Vaz and Michael Fabricant present the Bill.
	Keith Vaz accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 210).

DEREGULATION BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Ordered,
	That the Order of 3 February 2014 (Deregulation Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
	(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	(3) Proceedings on Consideration–
	(a) shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown;
	(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 Table 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day  
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the sale of alcohol and amendments to Clauses 45 to 49; amendments to Schedule 18 3.00 pm 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to health and safety at work and amendments to Clause 1 5.00 pm 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to apprenticeships and amendments to Clauses 3 and 4 and Schedules 1 and 13 7.00 pm 
			 Second day  
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to driving and to roads, railways, tramways and other means of transport and amendments to Clauses 6 to 10 and 30 to 33 and Schedules 2 and 3 and 8 to 10 Three hours before the moment of interruption 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to TV licensing and amendments to Clauses 51 and 52; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration One hour before the moment of interruption 
		
	
	(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Tom Brake.)
	Question agreed to.

Deregulation Bill
	 — 
	[1st Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Sale of alcohol: community events etc and ancillary business sales

‘(1) In section 2 of the Licensing Act 2003 (authorisation for licensable activities etc), after subsection (1) insert—
	“(1A) The licensable activity of selling alcohol by retail may be carried on if each sale is a permitted sale by virtue of Part 5A.”
	(2) After Part 5 of that Act, insert the Part set out in Schedule (Part to be inserted as Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003) to this Act.
	(3) In section 136 of that Act (unauthorised licensable activities), at the end of subsection (5) insert—
	“In addition, for the purposes of this Part the licensable activity of selling alcohol by retail is under and in accordance with an authorisation if each sale is a permitted sale by virtue of Part 5A.”
	(4) In section 140 of that Act (allowing disorderly conduct on licensed premises etc)—
	(a) omit the “and” before subsection (2)(d);
	(b) after that paragraph insert “, and
	(e) in the case of premises specified in a Part 5A notice, to the person who gave the notice.”
	(5) In section 141 of that Act (sale of alcohol to a person who is drunk)—
	(a) omit the “and” before subsection (2)(d);
	(b) after that paragraph insert “, and
	(e) in the case of premises specified in a Part 5A notice, to the person who gave the notice.”;
	(c) in subsection (3), after “This section” insert “(except subsection (2)(e))”.
	(6) In section 143 of that Act (failure to leave licensed premises etc)—
	(a) omit the “and” before subsection (2)(d);
	(b) after that paragraph insert “, and
	(e) in the case of premises specified in a Part 5A notice, to the person who gave the notice.”
	(7) In section 144 of that Act (keeping of smuggled goods)—
	(a) omit the “and” before subsection (2)(d);
	(b) after that paragraph insert “, and
	(e) in the case of premises specified in a Part 5A notice, to the person who gave the notice.”
	(8) In section 147A of that Act (persistently selling alcohol to children)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(b), for the words from “either” to “Part 5” substitute “licensed premises, premises authorised to be used for a permitted temporary activity by virtue of Part 5 or premises specified in a Part 5A notice”;
	(b) in subsection (4), after paragraph (b) insert “or
	(c) the person or one of the persons who gave a Part 5A notice in respect of the premises.”
	(9) In section 153 of that Act (prohibition of unsupervised sales by children)—
	(a) omit the “and” before subsection (4)(c);
	(b) after that paragraph insert “, and
	(d) in relation to a sale by retail that is a permitted sale by virtue of Part 5A—
	(i) the person who gave the Part 5A notice, or
	(ii) any individual aged 18 or over who is authorised for the purposes of this section by that person.”
	(10) In section 159 of that Act (interpretation of Part 7), at the end of the definition of “relevant premises” insert “, or
	(a) except in sections 145 and 152, premises that (by reason of being specified in a Part 5A notice) are premises on which a sale by retail of alcohol is capable of being a permitted sale by virtue of Part 5A;”.
	(11) In section 194 of that Act (index of defined expressions) insert the following entries at the appropriate places—
	
		
			 “Part 5A notice section 110A(2)” 
			 “relevant licensing authority, in Part 5A section 110N” 
			 “relevant person, in Part 5A section 110D(11)”. 
		
	
	(12) In section 197 of that Act (regulations and orders)—
	(a) in subsection (3) (which lists exceptions to the use of the negative procedure), after paragraph (c) insert—
	“(cza) regulations under section 110B(2), (3) or (7) or 110C(2), (3), (5) or (6) (regulations relating to sales of alcohol permitted by virtue of Part 5A),”;
	(b) in subsection (4) (which specifies when the affirmative procedure is required)—
	(i) after “or (g)” insert “or regulations within subsection (3)(cza)”;
	(ii) after “the order” insert “or regulations”.’. —(Norman Baker.)
	This amendment, together with amendment NS1, inserts new Part 5A into the Licensing Act 2003 (with consequential provision to other Parts of that Act) to introduce a new procedure for authorising the sale of alcohol where the sale is ancillary to a community event or to the provision of other goods or services by a business.
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 1—Part to be inserted as Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003.

Norman Baker: The effect of the new clause is to create a new light-touch form of authorisation for community groups or certain businesses, such as bed-and-breakfast accommodation providers, to sell small amounts of alcohol under the Licensing Act 2003—the new part 5A notice.
	It may be helpful to the House if I first give some background and explain the problem that we are trying to solve with the new measure. Last year the Government carried out an extensive public consultation on various proposals in its alcohol strategy. This of course included our efforts to tackle alcohol harms. On that front we have already achieved much. For example, we have reformed the Licensing Act 2003 and introduced new tools and powers to make it easier for local police and licensing authorities to close down problem premises and crack down on alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder.
	At the same time, the Government’s public consultation last year recognised that sometimes regulation can be excessive, even needless. No one wants to stop a responsible drinker enjoying a drink responsibly. The Government’s approach is all about balance. We want to free up the police and local enforcement agencies to tackle alcohol harms while giving them greater discretion to manage
	low-risk alcohol sales. The Government has also made it clear that it wants to cut red tape and pointless regulations, but I stress that that must not be at the expense of necessary safeguards against alcohol harms. This new measure is about striking that balance.

Kelvin Hopkins: The Minister talks about alcohol harms, about which we are all concerned, but would not the new clause increase the consumption of alcohol rather than reduce it?

Norman Baker: I do not think that it will increase the consumption of alcohol; rather it will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, and do so in a way that means that alcohol is consumed in low quantities and safely, as I will set out.
	Our public consultation last year recognised that the existing alcohol licensing regime is a touch bureaucratic in some respects. For some small voluntary groups and bed-and-breakfast establishments, for example, the existing premises licences and temporary event notices regimes are pointlessly costly and burdensome. The restrictions and scrutiny are disproportionate for their low-level, low-risk needs. The first of these are the community groups with local membership, including charities and not-for-profit organisations, which carry out activities in local areas and wish to sell small amounts of alcohol at small-scale events throughout the year. I should confirm that alcohol provided as part of a ticket price or in return for a donation is usually defined in law as a sale.
	We are thinking here of local groups, such as the women’s institutes or local residents’ groups, or the church choir that wants to offer a glass of wine to audience members in the interval, and other groups who hold occasional events, for example, lunches and plays at which they wish to provide very small amounts of alcohol to attendees. Such groups often operate from different venues in their local communities. Groups such as the women’s institutes, thriving church organisations and other local charities are not just about “Jam and Jerusalem”; sometimes they might also be about a glass of warm beer or chilled chardonnay. But refreshments aside, their wider activities are part of the fabric and lifeblood of thriving local communities, which I hope all in this House support. No one wants to tie them down with unnecessary bureaucracy if we can help it.
	The existing options for an alcohol licence are often unsuitable in such cases. The cost of obtaining a single premises licence is between £100 and £1,900 a year, with an additional associated cost of obtaining a personal licence of approximately £75. Temporary event notices must be given each time and only a limited number—12 at the moment—can be allowed each year for the same premises to ensure appropriate safeguards against crime and disorder and public nuisance because they provide for larger scale, higher risk events.
	The other group we looked at was small businesses that want to sell small amounts of alcohol in a similar low-risk environment as part of a wider service. We specifically have in mind providers of bed and breakfast or other similar overnight accommodation who may wish to offer a glass of wine or a beer to welcome their guests at the end of a long day’s travel or with an evening meal. Even if not charged for directly, this alcohol is in law a sale. The burden of a premises licence in such cases seems to many, including me, to be excessive.
	We did consider options such as directly exempting such activity from the licensing process and consulted on other ideas such as greater local discretion on temporary event notices. However, the coalition Government is committed to tackling the harms that alcohol can cause, as I mentioned a moment ago, and recognises the need for important safeguards to guard against those harms and the risk of loopholes. We believed that creating a new tailor-made authorisation was the best option.
	In the response to the public consultation on alcohol, we announced our intention to create a new authorisation called the community and ancillary sellers notice. This will be a cheaper, simpler and easier alternative to other types of authorisation, such as a premises licence or using multiple temporary event notices. Since that announcement, we have been working with colleagues across Government to develop the proposal. It has been designed to remove unnecessary licensing burdens and costs for community groups, and for some small businesses in the licensing process, so it is right that it should be part of the Deregulation Bill.
	As the Minister with responsibility for the alcohol licensing regime and for measures to enable local areas to tackle alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder effectively, I have been keen to ensure that we have in place the necessary safeguards against harm. Deregulation must not be at the expense of undermining public safety or public health. That is why, although the Government looked seriously at whether it could help groups such as hairdressers and florists with this measure, it has decided that it should not, and so will not. Under the new community and ancillary sellers notice, as the schedule sets out, eligible groups or individuals will be able to sell small amounts of alcohol between 7 am and 11 pm in limited, low-risk circumstances during the period of 36 months.

James Duddridge: I welcome this sensible deregulatory move. The Minister keeps referring to small amounts of alcohol. Will he define what that refers to?

Norman Baker: I am happy to help my hon. Friend. We are today looking at the principle of the establishment of the scheme, and it is perfectly proper that the detail of that should be subject to consultation, with Members of the House, the Local Government Association and others, and we will not take a firm view on that until the consultation has taken place.

Toby Perkins: I should be grateful if the Minister updates the House when he gets that. My wife and I have often disagreed on what a small amount of alcohol is. I would be grateful if, on behalf of husbands around the country, I could make her aware of the legal definition of that.

Norman Baker: I hesitate to intervene in the Perkins’ household as to what a small amount of alcohol might be. This is a proper matter for consultation. We need to take into account, for example, whether any alcohol consumed could in theory lead to disorder. We would not want that to occur under this regime. We also want to ensure that we do not encourage drink-driving, and
	so on. Those are the considerations that we will take into account, but we genuinely want to hear from those who respond to the consultation process what they regard as a small amount. It is the principle that we are concerned with today.

Barry Sheerman: I am terribly enthusiastic about the Minister’s general all-party, cross-party approach to getting rid of unnecessary regulation. I absolutely agree with him, but I have just come from a meeting of crowdfunders, who are really hurt by the fact that a Government who believe in deregulation have just introduced the regulation of crowdfunding through the Financial Conduct Authority, which is doing great harm to a growing industry.

Norman Baker: That is a bit off my beat, if I may say so. Obviously, the Government believes in regulation where it is appropriate, but it also believes in removing regulation where it is not appropriate, and that is a balance that it tries to strike in what it does.
	Getting an authorisation under the new community and ancillary sellers notice will be simple and straightforward for eligible users and for the local licensing authorities. Users will fill out a simple form and send it to the council to notify it of their intentions to provide alcohol under the new notice. The fee, which we want to keep as low as possible, will accompany the notice. Under the provisions, business users or ancillary sellers will need to specify a single premises from which they will be making alcohol sales, and community groups will be able to name up to three premises at which they will be holding events under the notice.
	Licensing authorities will be able to reject a notice where it is appropriate on grounds of preventing crime and disorder, preventing public nuisance, promoting public safety, or protecting children from harm.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in what the Minister has to say. Did the drinks industry contribute to the consultation, and was it enthusiastic about or resistant to the new clause?

Norman Baker: The drinks industry responded to the alcohol strategy. It would be astonishing if it had not done so. Obviously, its comments were taken into account, but so were the comments of others who were concerned, for example, about alcohol harms. As I mentioned a moment ago, we tried to strike the correct balance, ensuring that we do not encourage alcohol harm, while removing unnecessary bureaucracy where its removal has no adverse impact.
	With regard to the notices, it is also worth pointing out that the local police and environmental health authority will also have a say. If they have concerns, they can say so before such a notice is given, and once an authorisation has been agreed, the notice may be revoked by a similar light-touch process.

Jim Shannon: How will the law be tightened for holders of licences who sell alcohol to those who are under age, particularly for those who are persistent offenders?

Norman Baker: Let me be clear that this is not an attempt to change the law relating to under-age alcohol sales. The requirements for alcohol sales that apply at present will apply in future. As I mentioned a moment ago, if we find that local police object and that individuals are taking advantage of the process in order to sell alcohol to those who are not entitled to it, obviously that will lead to the licence being revoked, and possibly to criminal action if the police and Crown Prosecution Service so determine.

Kelvin Hopkins: Was there consultation with representatives of those who work in accident and emergency departments on Fridays and Saturdays and who have to put up with people who are seriously inebriated, and often injured, causing terrible problems for the staff?

Norman Baker: There was certainly an open consultation on the alcohol strategy generally. I am well aware of the link between alcohol and violence, as both matters are within my portfolio at the Home Office, but I must stress that this proposal is about very low levels of alcohol being consumed in controlled events and in certain circumstances involving, for example, church choirs and bed-and-breakfast establishments. That is a far cry from the problems we sometimes see on our streets on a Friday or Saturday night. I want to stress that alcohol harm and disorder would in no way be accelerated by this process; quite the reverse. We are simply taking a non-threatening, problem-free alcohol environment and simplifying the bureaucracy that surrounds it. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about these matters, but let me assure him that we take alcohol harm very seriously indeed.

Barry Sheerman: On that point—and it is a serious one, as those of us who have campaigned on the wrongful use of alcohol know—there used to be different laws for those who charge for alcohol and those who give it away for free, for example as an act of hospitality in commercial premises. Will that continue, or will it end under this scheme?

Norman Baker: As I mentioned a moment ago, if a bed-and-breakfast establishment offers alcohol to guests when they arrive, that is deemed to be a sale, even if an indirect one, because essentially it is included in the overall price of the overnight accommodation. That is how it is regarded in this legislation.
	The provisions allow for other safeguards. Users of the new notice will be responsible persons for the purposes of criminal offences in the Licensing Act 2003, such as the selling of alcohol to children. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As with other authorisations under the 2003 Act, the provisions in the Bill will be underpinned by more detailed regulation, on which the Government will consult.
	We also intend such regulations to cover the amount of alcohol that can be sold. That relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). We intend that a limit on the amount of alcohol that can be given to an adult within 24 hours will generally apply, or an average of that amount for adults attending a community event. Precise limits will be subject to consultation. We want the system to operate in a light-touch, practical way. Details, such as the level of the fee, the qualifying
	criteria—the types of community groups and the size of businesses, for example—and what discretion licensing authorities will have, will all be matters for regulation, most of which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thereby giving Members full opportunity to take part in discussions and decisions. We are looking forward to working with key partners on the detail of the measure and are consulting publicly on this.
	This is a radical new licensing authorisation that will help to achieve the Government’s aims of helping community groups and particular small businesses while at the same time maintaining important public health and public safety safeguards. I commend it to the House.

Chi Onwurah: The Minister was not with us in Committee and so might not be aware that we had many discussions on how best to characterise the Bill. Was it a rag-bag, a hodge-podge or the Christmas tree Bill to end all Christmas tree Bills? An hon. Friend of mine asserts that although it began as a Christmas tree Bill, it has grown and grown to the point that it now bears a closer resemblance to the Blackpool illuminations. New clause 5 is one such example.
	However, given the nature of new clause 5, perhaps a cocktail Bill is a better metaphor. Perhaps it is a particularly strong Cosmopolitan—one that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Or perhaps it is an Old Etonian, which I understand is a mix of gin, bitters and crème de noyaux—guaranteed to leave one with a crashing headache the morning after. That is because the Bill still contains nothing to tackle the cost of living crisis gripping this country, it is still focused more on removing burdens from Ministers and officials than on helping the people and businesses of this country, and it still contains grave attacks on workers’ rights and health.

James Duddridge: I was with the hon. Lady not only in Committee but at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage, when I think a broader view was taken. If she does not think that the Bill contains the right deregulatory measures, what would the Opposition bring forward to help solve some of the real problems she is discussing?

Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I am sure he is aware, when we heard evidence in Committee we discussed some other options for deregulation. I do not intend to set out our deregulatory programme now—I am sure that you would not consider that to be in order, Mr Deputy Speaker—but I feel that the Opposition have the right, and indeed the duty, to comment on the fact that the entire contribution the Bill will make in savings is estimated to be £10 million over 10 years. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House would consider that to be a radical benefit.
	New clause 5 and new schedule 1 insert a new part in the Licensing Act 2003 to introduce a new procedure for authorising the sale of alcohol where that sale is part of a community event, as we have heard. The Opposition absolutely believe that it is right to remove unnecessary regulatory and legislative burdens from individuals, civil society, business and public sector organisations, including the Women’s Institute and other organisations to which the Minister referred.
	Although we do not oppose the proposal, we have some concerns about which we are seeking assurances from the Minister. In Committee we discussed temporary event notices, the sale of chocolate liqueurs and other minor changes to licensing. Indeed, when we had a short debate on what constitutes a low level of alcohol consumption, I had a flashback to our debate on how many Mars bars’ worth of liqueurs it would take to intoxicate a child. At no stage did the Minister present at the time indicate that the Government were considering introducing what I think—I am sure the Minister will agree—is a large change to a complex licensing regime at this stage.
	Introducing changes in that manner has become something of a hallmark of this Government. However, I understand that the Bill was written in draft about a year ago and that long before that Ministers were looking for proposals to put in it, so will the Minister explain why this proposal has been tabled at the last minute? The result is that interested parties have not had the opportunity to scrutinise it. Why the rush? The regime has been in place for 11 years, and although we support the aims of the amendment, we do not feel that the manner of its introduction is warranted. It is not the way to make changes to a complex licensing regime.
	Will the Minister assure the House that any secondary regulations that are brought forward as a consequence of these changes will not be introduced in that way? Will he tell the House what consultation was undertaken with licensing authorities, in particular, and whether they support the change? How much time, if any, were they given to respond to it? I note that the Minister spoke of consultation following the consultation on the alcohol strategy, but the Local Government Association was certainly surprised by the inclusion of these proposals in this manner.
	In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) criticised the Government’s overall approach to alcohol. The Minister thought he was criticising the Government’s alcohol strategy, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is very difficult to discern an alcohol strategy to criticise. It is hard to criticise what does not exist, though it is right to criticise the fact that it does not exist. What kind of strategy introduces changes in this piecemeal manner? There is a document on the Government’s website entitled “Alcohol Strategy”, yet it is anything but a strategy. These seemingly random changes, introduced with very little notice, do not give Labour Members or stakeholders outside the House any confidence that Ministers are working hard towards any kind of specific objective or plan.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) pointed out, there are concerns to be raised about this proposal. We support its aims, but it is hard to judge the likely effects it will have when introduced in a such a disjointed and seemingly impulsive manner. As the LGA said in its briefing, which I am sure the Minister has read:
	“Introducing this clause as a standalone item means that it cannot be considered in the context of a potential public health licensing objective, which the LGA strongly believes should be brought forward, and which the Government has said it is still considering. The proposed clause could be said to increase the availability and accessibility of alcohol, contributing to the high levels of alcohol-related health harm that exist.”
	If this were part of an overall strategy, we would be able to see how the Government addressed those criticisms. The LGA has also proposed a complete review of licensing. Has the Minister thought about commissioning such a review so that any further changes might be considered in terms of their effect on the wider regime?
	Another concern we have, to which the Minister alluded briefly, is the potential cost of this change to local authorities. There is a prescribed fee, but it is not clear whether it will cover the cost to licensing authorities. He spoke of further consultation. Will he give more details on whom he will consult and what will be the remit of the consultation? I am sure he is aware that at present alcohol licensing is a net cost to local authorities of approximately £17 million a year. This is clearly a disincentive to refuse applications, as that may result in costly appeals, or to initiate enforcement action, especially when local authorities are struggling with the Government’s programme of cuts. It is important that the Minister does not load another cost burden on to them. I would therefore appreciate his clarifying the point about cost recovery.
	The Minister confirmed that this licence is in addition to temporary event notices. Will he clarify the limit on the total number of days in a calendar year when events can be held under TENs? In Committee, he said that it would be 21 days. Does this proposal affect that in any way?
	The Government’s alcohol policy is in complete chaos. Minimum unit pricing was promised, then ditched; we had another U-turn on multi-buy discounts; antisocial behaviour powers have been watered down; the sobriety schemes have seemingly been abandoned; reform of licensing never materialised; and the late-night levy looks set to raise less than 5% of what was promised. The Government blocked Labour’s proposals to make public health a licensing condition when the Bill that became the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 was discussed. The alcohol strategy, such that it is, includes a commitment to look at public health in cumulative assessments that councils undertake, but this does not seem to have been taken forward either. The Government have done nothing on alcohol education or alcohol advertising to kids. The Prime Minister promised
	“a real effort to get to grips with the root cause”
	of alcohol problems, with a strategy that attacked alcohol harms from “every angle”. The Minister spoke of looking to achieve a balance. Will he give greater clarity on the context in which this measure contributes to that balance?
	I see no evidence of any kind of strategy on alcohol whatsoever. This is just another random licensing measure thrown into this Bill at the last minute without proper consultation, as we have heard from the interested parties. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to work with licensing authorities on the secondary regulations and to reassure the House that councils will not be harmed or hammered by the fees involved. In expectation of those assurances, we will not oppose these measures.

Kelvin Hopkins: I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity when he says that he is concerned about alcohol harm, but I cannot see that as being consistent with this clause, which liberalises alcohol sales and use. It is a deregulatory measure, not a regulatory measure. I am a regulator rather than a deregulator. I believe profoundly
	in the nanny state where it is going to protect lives, particularly the lives of young people and vulnerable people, as in the case of alcohol.
	Britain has a very serious alcohol problem, with appallingly high levels of binge drinking reported only this week, when we were compared very unfavourably with many other countries. We are simply not taking the alcohol problem seriously. It is all very well to say, “Have a drink when you arrive at your bed and breakfast—a little tincture to warm you up for the evening and get you started before you have your bottle of wine with dinner later on”, but it encourages a more relaxed culture of alcohol consumption when we should instead be raising concerns about it. Alcohol liver damage has increased massively in recent years. We have seen rising numbers of deaths from cirrhosis of the liver. There is an enormous burden on the national health service, especially in A and E departments at weekends. I wonder what the British Medical Association and the unions representing the staff in those departments feel about this.
	Oceans of cheap alcohol are still being sold in supermarkets and bought and consumed illegally by young people, often with the collaboration of older people. These things are still not being addressed seriously. Vast numbers of people are drinking under age. They are being hooked on alcohol young so that they will spend their lives drinking and making more profits for the drinks industry. I am not a spoilsport. I enjoy alcohol myself, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you may have observed, though not, I hope, to excess. Nevertheless, I am aware of its dangers. Making the culture more liberal and relaxed reduces rather than increases concerns about alcohol and makes us less likely rather than more likely to be self-controlled.
	My most serious concern is about the thousands of babies born severely and permanently damaged by alcohol consumed in their mothers’ pregnancy. A more relaxed attitude towards alcohol consumption as regards Women’s Institute functions, going to bed and breakfasts and so on will do nothing to dissuade women who are seeking to become pregnant, or who are pregnant, from consuming alcohol.
	The scientific research that I have mentioned in this House on a number of occasions shows that even small amounts of alcohol cause damage to babies. If one is drinking oneself, one is causing damage to oneself. Even an alcoholic has a choice about whether to drink, but an unborn baby does not have a choice as to whether its mother does so. This is very unfair on mothers, and on women, but we have to think about the children and what happens to them. We do not even have notices in every maternity clinic giving advice to women not to drink at all if they are seeking to conceive or if they are pregnant, yet apparently—I have not visited one recently—they all have warnings about smoking, which is less dangerous to foetuses than alcohol.
	The alcohol culture is being fed into our general culture surreptitiously by the drinks industry. It is ever so nice and cuddly when it talks about these things, but it is actually talking about an addictive drug that causes terrible problems. Providing advice to all women from the age of puberty onwards about the dangers of alcohol to unborn children is absolutely crucial. Until the Government put on every drink canister a warning to women that they should not drink at all during
	pregnancy—accompanied by a symbol of a pregnant woman, as happens in the United States—I will not be satisfied and will continue to pursue the issue.
	We need minimum unit pricing. It is possible, even now, to buy vast quantities of alcohol very cheaply, including 3-litre bottles of cider, in supermarkets. A simple unit price of 50 p per unit would be reasonable. It would have no effect on beer drinkers in pubs or on the average wine drinker, but it would stop oceans of very cheap alcohol being handed to children and others who abuse alcohol.
	The Government have to wake up and take alcohol seriously. Although this liberalising measure is cuddly, nice and warm and we all like the idea of Women’s Institutes having a little wine in the evening—that is fine—what we are actually doing is encouraging more alcohol consumption rather than less, and creating a more relaxed environment and culture for the consumption of alcohol. That is a mistake, given Britain’s serious problem with alcohol.

Norman Baker: Let me respond first to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). If he is going to judge the Government’s alcohol strategy, it is important that he does so in the round, rather than simply assuming that what we are discussing today represents its totality. The reality is that the Government has taken a number of steps to deal with alcohol harms and continues to do so.
	The Home Office works in close conjunction with the Department of Health on these matters. We have made it easier for local police to close down problem premises. We have banned sales of alcohol below cost price. We are challenging the industry very firmly to make progress on the sorts of issues referred to by the hon. Gentleman, including the availability of high-strength, cheap 3-litre bottles of cider. I am also pushing the industry on how alcohol is promoted, particularly in supermarkets. We are taking a whole range of actions to try to deal with alcohol harms.
	It is important, as part of a sensible strategy, to identify what the problems are and deal with them firmly, but we should not apply the same sledgehammer approach—if one may call it that—to an area where there is no problem, and there is no problem with a women’s institute offering someone a glass of wine. That is what today’s debate is about. The hon. Gentleman needs to judge the strategy in the round rather than assume that this represents its totality, as he appeared to do in his contribution.

Kelvin Hopkins: In all kinds of ways, Britain seems to resist imposing rules that seem restrictive, but in the end we are forced into them. I remember people opposing the wearing of crash helmets on motorcycles, while seat belts were not made compulsory here until years after other countries had done so. I also remember resistance to the breathalyser—it is only Barbara Castle who had a bit more courage and gumption to push it through—but now we recognise that drinking and driving is wrong. Is not the Minister just part of a long tradition of resisting change that will ultimately come about?

Norman Baker: I am in a long tradition of providing pragmatic answers to the problems that present themselves and of responding to them in a measured, rather than
	over-zealous, way. We have to remember that we have to take people with us—we need to win hearts and minds. I also think that Britain is less authoritarian than many other countries. Some countries appear to be happy for their Governments to direct their way of life more than we do, but people in this country do not like being directed by the Government of the day and it is right that we respect that healthy response.
	Let me turn to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who, unless I am mistaken, does not appear to know that we actually did consult on the alcohol strategy, including a question on the ancillary sellers’ notice, which matured into the provision under discussion. It is not true to say that there has been no consultation on the strategy or the measure, because there has been a consultation.

Chi Onwurah: I did not say that there had been no consultation on the alcohol strategy; I said that no discernible alcohol strategy had come out of it and that the measures were not tabled in Committee or when the Bill was initially submitted.

Norman Baker: With respect, the hon. Lady said both things and the record will show that. There was a consultation, as part of the alcohol strategy, on a new, light-touch authorisation to reduce burdens on ancillary sellers of alcohol. That is what we are discussing this afternoon. It was consulted on, comments were fed back and they have informed the way in which we have taken matters forward.
	I want to stress, as I did earlier, that this House now agrees in principle on this matter and the details of the scheme will be worked through in consultation, so Opposition Members and anybody else who wants to contribute will be able to do so. Although we will establish the principle this afternoon—if the House agrees, as I hope it will—we have not set out what we think should be the starting fee or the fee cap. We have not consulted on the details of powers of entry where they may be appropriate. We have not made any views known on the final decision about the maximum size of an accommodation provider. We have not yet given details on alcohol limits, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) referred to earlier, because we are open to consultation on them. We have not yet given a definition of the eligible community group and so on. That is deliberate, because we want this to be open for consultation so that people can genuinely express their views and we can take them into account.
	The hon. Lady is wrong to say that the measures have been tabled at the last minute, because they have not in the sense that they were subject to consultation as part of the alcohol strategy and the details will be resolved in a consultation exercise. I am afraid that her interpretation of the process is simply wrong. The Opposition are very keen to complain when the Government does not listen to people. We have been listening and that is why we have taken time to frame the measures in this particular way.
	The hon. Lady complains, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is sitting further down the Opposition Front Bench, regularly
	does—because it is written down on a piece of paper they are supposed to read out, I imagine—that the Government’s alcohol strategy is apparently in complete chaos, but it is the Opposition’s strategy that is in complete chaos. The hon. Member for Luton North complains—understandably, in some ways—about his concerns about alcohol harms, but which Government brought in the liberalising Licensing Act 2003, which made alcohol available in more places for longer than at any time since the first world war? The Labour party did that. Labour Members cannot have it both ways, but that is what they seem to be trying to do.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North usually complains about late-night levies, but she does not mention the alcohol disorder zones her Government brought in, none of which was taken up. The Opposition need to be a little more careful in their accusations.

Kelvin Hopkins: In my defence, I was opposed to what the previous Government did and I raised these matters with the then Secretary of State.

Norman Baker: I am almost tempted to say that that is a compliment, but that goes without saying and the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record for the benefit of the House.
	The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central does not think that much is happening in terms of an alcohol strategy. Perhaps she has not noticed that her own local authority in Newcastle has introduced a late-night levy, which appears to be working rather well. I was very pleased to go there and join local councillors in launching it.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for giving way a second time, but once again his ascription to me of a lack of knowledge is not accurate. I am very familiar with Newcastle’s late-night levy. Indeed, I discussed it with the leader of Newcastle city council, Nick Forbes, only yesterday evening. In some ways, it is the burden of cuts on local authorities across the country and on the police that makes such levies necessary. In this case, it was businesses in Newcastle that wished to introduce it.

Norman Baker: Indeed they did, and I think they made a very wise decision and that businesses and the public in Newcastle will benefit from the Government’s sensible option of a late-night levy. I hope that other councils up and down the country will follow the example of the hon. Lady’s council and introduce such a levy, which not only helps deal with public disorder, but provides a necessary income stream to recognise the cost of disorder to a particular city.
	I appreciate that the hon. Lady’s focus has been on the Deregulation Bill rather than on the subject of alcohol so she will not have had sight of all the issues, but she said that we have blocked the public health licensing objective. That is not true. The matter remains under consideration. The fact is that if she looks at the local alcohol action areas, she will see that they are being used as a pilot for what might be done for public health licensing objectives. I agree that there is a public health issue about alcohol that should be taken into account, but it is not as simple as it is sometimes made
	out. That matter is being taken forward under the guise of the local alcohol action areas introduced by the Government.
	The hon. Lady mentioned fees, and I reiterate that they will be subject to consultation. She wondered whether local councils are out of pocket, and asserted that they are out of pocket as a consequence of handling the present licensing regime. Taking that at face value and assuming she is right for the purpose of this discussion, if that is the case, the introduction of a light-touch regime will divert people from what is—according to her—presumably a loss-making activity for local councils to one that is rather simpler and will therefore reduce the loss for local councils. That is the logic of her position, so I hope that she will welcome the measure on that basis. I confirm that it is subject to the affirmative procedure, so there will be a full opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to contribute to the discussion as the measure is taken forward in a sensible way.
	Lastly, I can tell the hon. Member for Luton North that minimum unit pricing remains an option. It is on the radar—it has not been ruled out—and it will be particularly on the radar if the alcohol industry does not respond sensibly to the challenges made by the Government. I commend the new clause to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1
	 — 
	‘Part to be inserted as Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003
	 — 
	“Part 5A
	 — 
	sale of alcohol at community events etc and ancillary business sale of alcohol
	 — 
	Conditions for permitted sales

110A General conditions
	(1) A sale by retail of alcohol is a permitted sale by virtue of this Part if—
	(a) the community event conditions (set out in section 110B or in regulations made under that section) or the ancillary business sales conditions (set out in section 110C or in regulations made under that section) are satisfied in relation to it, and
	(b) the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) below are satisfied in relation to it.
	(2) The sale must take place on premises specified in a notice that complies with section 110D (a “Part 5A notice”).
	(3) No counter notice under section 110J must have been given in relation to the Part 5A notice.
	(4) The sale must take place during the period of 36 months beginning with the date when the Part 5A notice takes effect.
	(5) The sale must take place between 07.00 a.m. and 11.00 p.m.
	110B Community event conditions
	(1) The community event conditions, in relation to a sale by retail of alcohol, are the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (6) and any additional conditions set out in regulations under subsection (7).
	(2) The sale must be made by or on behalf of a body that is—
	(a) of a prescribed description,
	(b) does not trade for profit, and
	(c) meets any prescribed criteria.
	(3) The sale must be ancillary to an event that—
	(a) is taking place on the premises,
	(b) is organised by the body by or on whose behalf the sale is made,
	(c) has been advertised in advance, and
	(d) meets any prescribed criteria.
	(4) The sale must take place on the premises during the course of the event.
	(5) The alcohol must be sold for consumption on the premises during the course of the event.
	(6) The number of persons present on the premises at the time of the sale must not exceed 300.
	(7) Regulations may provide for additional conditions prescribed in the regulations to be community event conditions.
	110C Ancillary business sales conditions
	(1) The ancillary business sales conditions, in relation to a sale by retail of alcohol, are the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) and any additional conditions set out in regulations under subsection (6).
	(2) The sale must be made by or on behalf of a body that—
	(a) is of a prescribed description, and
	(b) meets any prescribed criteria.
	(3) The sale must take place on premises that—
	(a) are managed by the body by or on whose behalf the sale is made,
	(b) are of a prescribed description, and
	(c) meet any prescribed criteria.
	(4) The sale must be ancillary to the provision of goods or services to a person on the premises where the sale takes place.
	(5) Except in prescribed circumstances, the alcohol must be sold for consumption on those premises.
	(6) Regulations may provide for additional conditions prescribed in the regulations to be ancillary business sales conditions.

Part 5A notices

110D Conditions for validity of notices
	(1) A notice complies with this section if the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (10) are satisfied in relation to the notice.
	(2) The notice must specify whether—
	(a) the community event conditions (set out in section 110B or in regulations under that section), or
	(b) the ancillary business sales conditions (set out in section 110C or in regulations under that section),
	will be satisfied in relation to sales of alcohol on the premises in question.
	(3) The notice must specify (for the purposes of section 110A(2))—
	(a) in the case of a notice that specifies the ancillary business sales conditions, the set of premises to which it relates;
	(b) in the case of a notice that specifies the community event conditions, no more than three sets of community premises, each of which must be wholly or partly in the area of the same licensing authority.
	(4) The notice must be given, on behalf of the body by or on whose behalf the sale of alcohol on the premises would take place, by a person who is aged 18 or over and is concerned in the management of the body.
	(5) The notice must be given to the relevant licensing authority, accompanied by the prescribed fee.
	(6) Unless the notice is given to the relevant licensing authority by means of a relevant electronic facility, a copy of the notice must be given to each relevant person.
	(7) The notice must be in the prescribed form.
	(8) The notice must specify the date when it takes effect.
	(9) The specified date must be at least 10 working days, but no more than 3 months, after the day on which the notice is given.
	Where subsection (6) applies, the notice is treated as given only when that subsection is complied with.
	(10) The notice must contain any other information that regulations require it to contain.
	(11) In this Part, “relevant person”, in relation to any premises, means—
	(a) the chief officer of police for any police area in which the premises are situated;
	(b) the local authority by which statutory functions are exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated in relation to minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health.
	110E Special restriction on giving of notices
	(1) This section applies where—
	(a) a Part 5A notice is given on behalf of a body, and
	(b) a counter notice under section 110J is given in relation to the Part 5A notice.
	(2) No further Part 5A notice may be given in respect of any premises specified in the notice, whether on behalf of that body or on behalf of another body that is an associate of it, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the counter notice is given.
	(3) However, the restriction in subsection (2) ceases to apply if the counter notice is revoked under section 110K or quashed by a court.
	(4) For the purposes of this section, a body is an associate of another body if it would be an associate of the other body for the purposes of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (see section 32(4) to (6) of that Act).
	110F Date when Part 5A notice takes effect
	(1) A Part 5A notice takes effect on the date specified under section 110D(8).
	(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if a counter notice is given under section 110J in relation to the notice.
	(For the case where a counter notice is revoked or quashed by a court, see section 110K(2).)
	110G Acknowledgement of notice etc
	(1) This section applies where a relevant licensing authority receives a notice that is, or purports to be, a Part 5A notice.
	(2) The authority must give written acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice to the person who gave it.
	(3) The acknowledgment must be given—
	(a) before the end of the first working day following the day on which it was received, or
	(b) if the day on which it was received was not a working day, before the end of the second working day following that day.
	(4) If the licensing authority is of the opinion that the notice does not comply with section 110D, the authority must as soon as possible give to the person who gave the notice written notification of the reasons for its opinion.
	(5) Subsection (2) does not apply where, before the time by which acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice must be given in accordance with subsection (3), the person who gave the notice has been given a counter notice under section 110J.
	110H Theft, loss etc of Part 5A notice
	(1) Where a Part 5A notice is lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed, the person who gave the notice may apply to the relevant licensing authority for a copy of the notice.
	(2) The application must be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
	(3) Where an application is made in accordance with this section, the licensing authority must issue the applicant with a copy of the notice (certified by the authority to be a true copy) if it is satisfied that the notice has been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.
	(4) This Act applies in relation to a copy issued under this section as it applies in relation to an original notice.

Objections and counter notices

110I Objection to Part 5A notice by a relevant person
	(1) Where a relevant person who is given a Part 5A notice is satisfied that allowing alcohol to be sold on the premises (or any of the premises) to which the notice relates would undermine a licensing objective, the relevant person must give a notice stating the reasons for being so satisfied (an “objection notice”)—
	(a) to the relevant licensing authority,
	(b) to the person who gave the Part 5A notice, and
	(c) to every other relevant person.
	(2) Subsection (1) does not apply at any time after the relevant person has received a copy of a counter notice under section 110J in relation to the Part 5A notice.
	(3) An objection notice may be given only during the period beginning with the day on which the relevant person is given the Part 5A notice and ending with the third working day following that day (“the three-day period”).
	(4) The restriction in subsection (3) does not apply to an objection notice based on—
	(a) things occurring after the end of the three-day period, or
	(b) information that the relevant person was unaware of, and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered, until after the end of that period.
	110J Counter notices
	(1) Where a relevant licensing authority receives a Part 5A notice, the relevant licensing authority may—
	(a) give the person who gave the Part 5A notice a counter notice under this section;
	(b) give a copy of the counter notice to each relevant person.
	(2) Where the relevant licensing authority receives an objection notice given in compliance with the requirement imposed by section 110I(3), the relevant licensing authority must decide whether to give a counter notice (and, if it does so decide, give that notice) no later than whichever of the following is the earlier—
	(a) the day before the date when the Part 5A would take effect (see section 110D(8));
	(b) the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the objection notice is received by the relevant licensing authority.
	(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) may not be exercised at any time after the Part 5A notice takes effect unless an objection notice under section 110I has been given, by virtue of subsection (4) of that section, in relation to the notice.
	(4) The counter notice must—
	(a) be in the prescribed form, and
	(b) be given in the prescribed manner.
	110K Counter notices: revocation etc
	(1) A relevant licensing authority must revoke a counter notice given under section 110J if—
	(a) the counter notice was given in consequence of one or more objection notices under section 110I, and
	(b) the objection notice or (as the case may be) each of them is withdrawn by the person who gave it or is quashed by a court.
	(2) Where a counter notice is revoked or is quashed by a court—
	(a) the counter notice is disregarded for the purposes of section 110A(3), except in relation to any time before the day on which it is revoked or quashed,
	(b) the Part 5A notice takes effect on that day, and
	(c) the relevant licensing authority must as soon as possible notify the person who gave the Part 5A notice of the date on which it takes effect.

Rights of entry, production of notice, etc

110L Right of entry where Part 5A notice given
	(1) A constable or an authorised officer may, at any reasonable time, enter premises to which a Part 5A notice relates to assess the likely effect of the notice on the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
	(2) An authorised officer exercising the power conferred by this section must, if so requested, produce evidence of the officer’s authority to exercise the power.
	(3) It is an offence intentionally to obstruct an authorised officer exercising a power conferred by this section.
	(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
	(5) In this section “authorised officer” means—
	(a) an officer of the licensing authority in whose area the premises are situated, or
	(b) if the premises are situated in the area of more than one licensing authority, an officer of any of those authorities,
	authorised for the purposes of this Act.
	110M Duty to keep and produce Part 5A notice
	(1) This section applies whenever premises are being used for sales of alcohol which are, or are purported to be, permitted sales by virtue of this Part.
	(2) The person who gave the Part 5A notice must secure that a copy of the notice is either—
	(a) prominently displayed at the premises, or
	(b) kept at the premises in the custody of that person or of someone who is present and working at the premises and whom that person has nominated for the purposes of this section (a “nominated person”).
	(3) Where a copy of the Part 5A notice is kept in the custody of a nominated person (and not prominently displayed at the premises) the person who gave the Part 5A notice must secure that a notice—
	(a) stating that the Part 5A notice is in the nominated person’s custody, and
	(b) specifying the position held at the premises by the nominated person,
	is prominently displayed at the premises.
	(4) It is an offence for the person who gave the Part 5A notice to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (2) or (where it applies) subsection (3).
	(5) Where—
	(a) a copy of the Part 5A notice is not prominently displayed at the premises, and
	(b) no notice is displayed as mentioned in subsection (3),
	a constable or authorised officer may require the person who gave the Part 5A notice to produce a copy of it for examination.
	(6) Where a notice is displayed as mentioned in subsection (3), a constable or authorised officer may require the nominated person to produce a copy of the Part 5A notice for examination.
	(7) An authorised officer exercising the power conferred by subsection (5) or (6) must, if so requested, produce evidence of the officer’s authority to exercise the power.
	(8) It is an offence for a person to fail, without reasonable excuse, to produce a copy of a Part 5A notice in accordance with a requirement under subsection (5) or (6).
	(9) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
	(10) In this section “authorised officer” has the meaning given in section 110L(5).

Supplementary

110N The relevant licensing authority
	(1) For the purposes of this Part, the “relevant licensing authority”, in relation to any premises, is determined in accordance with this section.
	(2) In the case of a Part 5A notice that specifies the ancillary business sales conditions or in the case of Part 5A notice that specifies the community event conditions in relation to only one set of premises, the relevant licensing authority is, subject to subsection (3), the authority in whose area the premises are situated.
	(3) Where the premises are situated in the areas of two or more licensing authorities, the relevant licensing authority is—
	(a) the licensing authority in whose area the greater or greatest part of the premises is situated, or
	(b) if there is no authority to which paragraph (a) applies, such one of the authorities as the person giving the Part 5A notice may choose.
	(4) In the case of a Part 5A notice that specifies the community event conditions in relation to more than one set of premises, the relevant licensing authority is—
	(a) if there is only one licensing authority in whose area each set of premises is wholly or partly situated, that licensing authority;
	(b) if each set of premises falls partly in the area of one authority and also partly in the area of another, such one of them as the person giving the Part 5A notice may choose.”’.—(Norman Baker.)
	This amendment inserts the new Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003 (see the explanatory statement to amendment NC5).
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 18
	 — 
	Legislation no longer of practical use

Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment 58,page157,line11, at end insert—
	‘Mining Industry Act 1920 (c.50)
	3A The Mining Industry Act 1920 is repealed.
	3B In consequence of paragraph 3A, in Schedule 4 to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, omit the entry for the Mining Industry Act 1920.
	Mining Industry Act 1926 (c.28)
	3C (1) In the Mining Industry Act 1926, omit section 20 (which confers power on coal-mining companies to establish profit sharing schemes irrespective of the terms of their articles of association).
	(2) The repeal made by sub-paragraph (1) is to have no effect in relation to any scheme still in existence that was established, and is being carried on, in reliance on the power conferred by section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926.’.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendments 75 and 59.
	Amendment 4,page162,line22, at end insert—

Part 7A
	 — 
	Civil Law

Defamation Act 1996 (c.31)
	34A Omit section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 (which allows an individual litigant in defamation cases to waive the ban in Article IX of the Bill of Rights on proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in court).’.
	The Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 and 2013 both recommended the repeal of this hardly-used provision.
	Government amendment 60.
	Amendment 73,page163,line12, at end insert—

‘Part 9 Communications

Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988
	37 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.
	38 Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Reception and re-transmission of wireless broadcast by cable) is revoked.’.
	Section 73 was introduced in the 1980s to encourage cable roll-out as a competing platform to terrestrial (analogue) television. This has clearly now been achieved and cable is a highly-effective and well-resourced competitor to Sky and Freeview.

Oliver Heald: This group contains amendments to schedule 18, which makes provision for repealing legislation that is no longer of practical use. Before I outline the amendments, may I say how much I welcome re-encountering the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), whose very helpful and constructive approach in Committee has improved the Bill?
	The Mining Industry Act 1920 and section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926 will be repealed as they are no longer needed for mining and quarrying. Most of the Mining Industry Act 1920 has already been repealed, and we now seek to repeal the remaining provisions. That will not affect rights to ownership. The remaining sections are outdated administrative arrangements. For example, functions were originally conferred on the Board of Trade, but were long ago transferred to the Secretary of State through a transfer of functions. Sections 18 and 22 concern the powers to make drainage schemes for groups of mines, but they are now dealt with by negotiations between mine owners and other local landowners. Sections 25 and 26 are technical provisions.
	Overall, the only matter that needs to be mentioned is section 20 of the 1926 Act, which provides for the establishment of profit-sharing schemes. It of course pre-dates the nationalisation and privatisation of the coal mining industry, as well as modern companies legislation. Such legislation should apply to coal mining companies in the same way as it applies to any others, so there is no need for any special provision. However, the amendment contains a saving provision, because it would clearly not be fair to undermine any existing profit-sharing schemes, and they will be allowed to continue.
	Most of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 has already been repealed. Section 37, which relates to the licensing of tidal works by harbour authorities, disapplies the
	requirements of section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. That Act has already been repealed, so the saving provision is no longer of any practical effect.
	Amendment 59 will extend the repeal of the Milk (Cessation of Production) Act 1985 to Northern Ireland. EU legislation in 1984 set up a system of production—the milk quota system—in which, in essence, each producer was allocated a quota. That will end on 31 March 2015, so the underlying EU legislation will cease to be effective next April. The amendment will allow the Bill to repeal and revoke all relevant UK legislation relating to Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales.
	Amendment 60 will ensure that the saving provision in paragraph 3 of schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 will cease to have effect in England, although it will continue to apply in Wales. The saving provision has become redundant in England. Essentially, sections 56 to 58 of the Housing Act 1980, which have been repealed, enabled landlords to grant assured tenancies for newly built or newly repaired dwellings. The vast majority of tenancies were converted in 1989 into new style assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988. Sections 56 to 58 were repealed subject to a saving provision, which is now being abolished because there are no longer any assured tenancies under the 1980 Act in existence in England, and it is therefore redundant.
	To turn to the non-Government amendments, amendment 73 would require the Government to revoke section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for raising that important issue. The effect of section 73 is that public service broadcasters cannot charge cable services for the inclusion of their channels on these services.
	Section 73 is part of a much wider framework supporting the availability of television and investment in television programming in the UK. A variety of rules and regulations affect the production, availability and ease of discovery of public service programming and its relationship with the different platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—that carry it. They include the obligations on public service broadcasters to offer their content to all relevant platforms, the rules governing payments by broadcasters for technical platform services and the powers for regulators to compel these services to carry public service broadcast content.
	This is an area with many competing interests. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport produced a policy paper, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers” last year. The Government stated that their policy objective was zero net charges, where fees for access to the main platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—would be cancelled out by charges made by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, so creating a zero net charge regime. That is close to the current market position, and it recognises the benefits to platforms, public service broadcasters and consumers.
	Section 73 is an integral part of that picture, but the arrangement is under pressure. Online services rely on section 73 to exploit public service broadcaster content, but no benefit flows back to the Public Service Broadcaster.

Philip Davies: Hear, hear.

Oliver Heald: There is litigation about that at present and my hon. Friend, who is right to raise the issue, will know that a case about to be heard in the Court of Appeal has a bearing on the issue. Because the case is sub judice, I cannot say much more about it, but it would be wrong to impose timetables for resolving the issues as regards satellite and cable without taking into account the situation—once it is definitive—as regards online services. I will obviously listen to my hon. Friend’s arguments, but he might want to think about whether the Government are right to wait for the decision from the Court of Appeal before taking action that might not be appropriate.

Philip Davies: The problem is that the litigation has been going on for four years already. Of course there are competing interests, but does my hon. and learned Friend not accept that section 73 was created in the 1980s, when the Government wanted to encourage the roll-out of the cable network? Given that that policy objective has been achieved, the section should surely be repealed.

Oliver Heald: I agree to a considerable extent with the point that my hon. Friend makes. There is no question that the legislation was introduced to help cable roll-out. However, it is the definition of a cable service that is at issue in the Court of Appeal case. It is correct that it has taken a considerable amount of time to get to this point, where the Court of Appeal will soon be able to list the case and, hopefully, determine it. Having waited for that period for a definite conclusion, it would be wrong to act in haste and perhaps repent at leisure. I will be interested to hear his remarks and I think that there will be time for him to make them—I hope so, anyway.
	I am pleased to announce that the Government will support the defamation amendment—amendment 4. It is a sensible amendment. As the House will be aware, the Government have made a commitment to repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. Their response to the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013 stated that
	“repealing Section 13 would be the wisest course of action”
	and that the Government
	“intends to do so when Parliamentary time and a suitable legislative opportunity allows.”
	There has long been discussion about the provision. The 1999 and 2013 Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that section 13 be repealed. The Government agree with the conclusion of those Committees that section 13 is at odds with the principle of freedom of speech, which it is the privilege of this House as a whole to enjoy, not just individual Members. Section 13 also creates an imbalance, because one party to a proceeding may choose to use the parliamentary record when the other party does not wish that to happen. The provision has never been used and it creates an anomaly. For those reasons, I urge the House to accept amendment 4.

Chi Onwurah: I echo the pleasure that was expressed by the Solicitor-General at the reunion of the team that had so many lively and, at times, constructive debates in Committee.
	The Opposition do not oppose Government amendments 58, 75, 59 and 60. However, I would like to make a small point about process. Will the Solicitor-General clarify for the House why time is being spent on removing obsolete legislation in parallel with the Law Commission’s statute law repeal programme? Given the resources available, the Law Commission’s work has been of a very high quality. We finished the Committee stage of the Bill with but seven minutes to spare, as the Solicitor-General will well remember, and we will not have time to discuss all the amendments we would like to discuss on Report.

Oliver Heald: I very much agree with the hon. Lady that the Law Commission does a fantastic job. It is preparing the measures that she mentions. That does not mean that if a Department knows that it has a piece of redundant or useless legislation, it cannot ask the House to get rid of it. There is not an either/or choice; we can do both.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Solicitor-General for that clarification. However, I think that the House should focus on that which will make the most difference to our constituents and the cost of living crisis. We should not seek to work in parallel with the Law Commission. However, I take his point. Although I am sad to see the repeal of the Mining Industry Act 1920 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, I agree with him that they do not serve a useful purpose at this time. It seems that this Tory Government are tidying up the last bits of mess that were left by the last one in undermining those great industries. I agree that, at this stage, those Acts perform no purpose.
	We have some sympathy with amendment 73 on copyright, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). We only wish that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport showed as much focus on the long-term future of the communications industry as the hon. Gentleman. As the Solicitor-General said, it is an anomaly that the BBC and other public service broadcasters have to pay cable companies for the transmission of their programmes, which so many of us enjoy. I should declare an interest because I served for six years at Ofcom, which regulates all the companies concerned.
	It is impossible to explain to anyone outside the industry why it is not the pay TV companies that pay the BBC and ITV to carry their great content, but the BBC and ITV who pay the cable companies to do so. That cannot be right. We are glad that the discussions that the Solicitor-General mentioned have resulted in reductions in transmission fees to net zero. However, we do not feel that net zero is good enough. Public service broadcasters create fantastic, valuable and creative content that is the envy of the world, and they should be paid for it.
	The Solicitor-General said that the legislation is complex and we recognise that. However, we question what work the Government are doing in this area. They dropped their communications Green Paper two years ago. Since then, we have had no meaningful communications strategy, even though the industry is critical to our economic and cultural future. There does not appear to be any work going on in the area now. The policy paper that the Solicitor-General mentioned so enthusiastically,
	“Connectivity, Content and Consumers”, does not look into the future in any meaningful way. I remind the House that Labour’s Communications Act 2003 looked 10 years into the future.

Karl Turner: Yes, forward thinking.

Chi Onwurah: As my hon. Friend says, it was forward thinking. However, those 10 years have elapsed and we are left bereft of a long-term strategy. With no communications Green Paper and no communications strategy, is it any wonder that it is left to Members such as the hon. Member for Shipley to raise such key issues? Having said that, we are not confident, given the lack of strategy and long-term vision, that the Government would have a handle on the impact of repealing this measure. We therefore find it difficult to support amendment 73.
	I will turn briefly to amendment 4 on defamation. As the Solicitor-General said, it has cross-party support and it appears to be sensible, so we will support it.

Philip Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and I am grateful for her kind words. From what she said I understood that there is overall, general support—if perhaps not specific support—for my point. This is the second day running on which my amendments seem to have had more support from the Labour Front Bench than from the Government Front Bench—a rather uncomfortable position in which to find myself, but I am grateful nevertheless.
	I will speak briefly because time is limited and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) wishes to contribute. Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was created in the 1980s, when the Government—understandably—wanted to encourage the roll-out of the cable network to stimulate competition with terrestrial TV. That was a noble aim, but it has been achieved. The cable network now reaches half the population, and there is fierce inter-platform competition between pay-TV platforms and free-to-air TV platforms. It is therefore clear that section 73 is completely outdated and not achieving the purpose for which it was intended. That purpose has already been achieved, so the measure needs to be repealed.
	Since cable TV derives even greater value from public service content, and delivers less and less in return as more adverts are skipped on pay TV, section 73 is preventing the normal commercial response, which would be to commercially negotiate the supply of content, putting at risk investment in the programmes that people want to see. Why should public service broadcasters, which are investing heavily in the UK’s creative economy, subsidise the business models of large global companies such as Liberty Global? That is clearly not fair. The litigation that the Solicitor-General mentioned has already taken four years and could still take a while longer, and I am not sure that we can afford to sit back and wait more years, while the issue is kicked into the long grass in such a way. Under the Communications Act 2003, public service broadcasters must, under their current licences, offer their public service broadcast channels to cable and satellite platforms so that consumers will not lose out if that is repealed.

Helen Goodman: As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, the Opposition have a lot of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but we were not clear whether it means that things would be opened up for negotiation—whether or not to pay; how much to pay—or whether no payments and no broadcasting would be possible. That is our uncertainty.

Philip Davies: It would enable a normal commercial arrangement to be reached, but it would not do anything to stop the terms of the Communications Act 2003, under which broadcasters must offer their public service broadcasting channels to cable and satellite platforms. That would still be the case, but the amendment would enable a commercial negotiation to take place, which would be fair to both parties. Otherwise, the situation works for neither party; it is to everybody’s advantage that an agreement is reached. Terrestrial broadcasters want their content on cable, and cable wants that content out there, so there is reason for reaching an agreement.

Oliver Heald: I am carefully following my hon. Friend’s logic and he is looking at two aspects: pay TV and satellite. The fastest-growing area, however, is online, which is what the court case is about. Does he recognise that it would be a mistake to leave matters on the basis he suggests, without taking account of the online position? That needs to be tackled once we know the court decision.

Philip Davies: All these matters need to be tackled, and my amendment seeks to say just that to the Government. The problem is that they are not being tackled and are causing an unfair disadvantage to public service broadcasters. That is my point. Pay TV companies are charging monthly subscriptions for access to pay TV, when most of the viewing is on public service broadcasting channels, which are an essential part of the offer being made. For example, ITV invests around £1 billion a year on programming, the majority of which is original UK content, driving UK economic growth and provided free to viewers at no cost to the taxpayer. Continuing to do that depends on its being able to make a commercial return on its investment, which at the moment it does not.
	Section 73 currently allows platforms and online operators to extract increasing amounts of value from free-to-air content, with no return to investors, rightsholders and talent, or the UK creative economy. Those platforms are perfectly happy to pay for other channels on ITV, such as ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4, through normal commercial negotiations, so it is hard to understand why they would not also be prepared to do that for the main channel. Section 73 of the 1988 Act is completely outdated and does a great disservice to public service broadcasters. It has created unfair terms and conditions for public service broadcasters, and even if the Government do not accept my amendment, I hope that they will consider the issue and come back soon with proposals to deal with this serious anomaly concerning cable TV and online content.

Thomas Docherty: I will not speak for long as I am aware that one of my
	former colleagues, a fellow survivor of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), also wishes to contribute.
	On behalf of Members across the House, I thank the Clerks for their assistance on the Committee, particularly Liam Laurence Smyth, the Clerk of the Journals, who so skilfully kept most members of the Committee in order. I felt quite intimidated as a member of that Committee because we had such august parliamentarians as the hon. Members for Stone and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt)—now promoted to shadow Education Secretary—and of course yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, the most able member of the Joint Committee, who ensured that we kept things right.
	Amendment 4 stands in my name and those of the hon. Member for Stone and others, and—as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, having served on the Committee—it is the second attempt by a Joint Committee to get this piece of legislation removed from the statute book.
	Briefly, back in the mid-1990s, Mr Neil Hamilton, then a Member of Parliament, was seeking to sue The Guardian for defamation over what turned out to be true allegations about his cash links with Mohamed Al-Fayed. As I am sure the whole House knows, under parliamentary privilege Members are not allowed to use parliamentary proceedings in a civil or criminal case. Mr Hamilton persuaded the then Conservative Government to introduce a clause that allowed a Member of Parliament to waive their privilege, so that they could use parliamentary proceedings as evidence in a defamation case when suing a newspaper. However, it was done in such a way that a newspaper could not also seek to have parliamentary privilege waived. That created an unfair playing field and, frankly, was done to help Mr Hamilton, who it then turned out was a liar and a crook—that is probably why he is a member of UKIP these days. The Joint Committee in 1999 and again last year recommended that the measure be taken out of statute because it was unfair on newspapers and an abuse of privilege.
	Obviously, the amendment is supported by the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) made clear our support last Thursday during the debate on parliamentary privilege. I welcome the fact that the names of the Solicitor-General and the Deputy Leader of the House now appear next to the amendment. I assume that they speak for both parts of the coalition and that the Government will be addressing the issue. To conclude, this is about a silly piece of legislation that should never have been introduced, and I welcome the fact that the Government are taking the Joint Committee’s recommendation on board.

William Cash: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your service on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege along with me and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), not to mention the litany of others—the hon. Gentleman has already mentioned them, so I do not need to. Amendment 4 is necessary, and I will refer to articles 163 to 170 of the Committee’s report, which include our recommendations for the repeal of section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, just to
	get that on the record and make it easier for people to follow what is being said—we do not have much time to go into all the ins and outs.
	The hon. Gentleman has explained the background to this issue, but I will add one or two further points. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General stated, the proposal was endorsed by the 1999 Joint Committee, and most recently by the 2013 Joint Committee, in your presence, Madam Deputy Speaker. The 1999 Joint Committee stated that,
	“the enactment of section 13, seeking to remedy a perceived injustice, had created indefensible anomalies of its own which should not be allowed to continue”.
	That is why it recommended that section 13 be repealed. The fundamental flaw identified by the 1999 Joint Committee was that,
	“the section undermined the basis of privilege: freedom of speech was the privilege of the House as a whole and not of the individual Member in his or her own right, although an individual Member could assert and rely on it.”
	The 1999 Committee noted that,
	“the anomaly that section 13 was available only in defamation proceedings and not in any other form of civil action”
	or criminal action. The Committee pointed out that,
	“since the exercise of section 13 is a matter of individual choice, where two people are involved in the same action, one may choose to waive privilege and another may not.”
	The 1999 Committee recommend that,
	“the mischief sought to be remedied by section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 should be cured by a different means: the replacement of section 13 with a short statutory provision empowering each House to waive Article 9 for the purpose of any court proceedings, whether relating to defamation or to any other matter, where the words spoken or the acts done in proceedings in Parliament would not expose the speaker of the words or the doer of the acts to any legal liability.”
	That approach was supported by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and by Dr Adam Tucker and Geoffrey Lock, a former head of the research division in the House of Commons Library.
	The Newspaper Society opposed any discretionary power to waive privilege, the use of which would be unpredictable and retrospective. It argued that,
	“the power of waiver could create a chilling effect, by the mere threat or possibility of its use, which would be detrimental to openness of debate and press reporting of proceedings in Parliament.”
	In its response to the Government consultation, the legislative council of Western Australia argued that,
	“it was preferable for privilege not to be waived for any reason, in order to avoid the potential for the waiver being used for purely political purposes.”
	Our Clerk of the House of Commons, the distinguished Sir Robert Rogers, who is sadly retiring, told us that his preference would be for the repeal of section 13, “without replacement”. The Media Lawyers Association took the same view.
	In evidence, the Government told the 2013 Committee:
	“There are clearly problems with Section 13 of the Defamation Act. It is at odds with the principle that freedom of speech is a privilege of the House, not just individual members and it can create an imbalance where one party to proceedings can choose to use the parliamentary record but the other cannot.”
	At that time, the Government told us that,
	“the Government is not aware of any instances in which anyone has used the power of waiver and as such it would not appear to be a pressing priority to repeal Section 13.”
	On reflection, the Government have decided that repealing section 13 is a good idea. We are grateful to them for following our recommendation.
	I ought to say that, initially, there was an attempt to include the proposal in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill but, as a result of consultation, members of the Committee agreed that it was better to include it in the Deregulation Bill, which is why we are debating it. The Committee recommends the repeal of section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. That is all I have to say for the time being.

Oliver Heald: I commend the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He summarised the position extremely well and I am glad that the proposal is going ahead.
	I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the Government will bring forward proposals for consultation when the court case, which is set down for later this year, has concluded. I ask him not to press his amendment to a Division on the basis that the Government are taking the issue seriously.
	In response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), the coherent strategy set out in the connectivity paper covers all the main issues: electronic programme guides, PSB prominence, bundling, switching off content, zero net fees, investment policy, child protection on the internet, internet access and comprehensive programme issues. It is a proper document, and she unfairly belittled it.
	The only other point I wanted to make before commending the amendments is on the Law Commission, which does a marvellous job. I should like to put on the record the Government’s gratitude to Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, who heads it, and all the people who work for it. It is a marvellous institution.
	Amendment 58 agreed to.

Schedule 18
	 — 
	Legislation no longer of practical use

Amendments made: 75,page159,line32, at end insert—
	‘Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (c.12)
	The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 is repealed.’.
	This amendment repeals the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 in the United Kingdom. The only operative provision is section 37. Section 37 provides for the disapplication of the requirements of the Coast Protection Act 1949, which has been repealed.
	Amendment 59,page162,line2, at end insert—
	‘The Milk (Cessation of Production) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/958 (N.I. 9)) is revoked.’.
	This amendment revokes the Milk (Cessation of Production) ( Northern Ireland) Order 1985. All schemes made under this Order were revoked in 2007, and it is not intended to make any further schemes under it. The underlying 
	European milk quota system is intended to cease with effect from 31 March 2015.
	Amendment 4,page162,line22, at end insert—

Part 7A
	 — 
	Civil Law

Defamation Act 1996 (c.31)
	34A Omit section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 (which allows an individual litigant in defamation cases to waive the ban in Article IX of the Bill of Rights on proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in court).’.
	The Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 and 2013 both recommended the repeal of this hardly used provision.
	Amendment 60,page163,line12, at end insert—

Part 9

Housing
	Housing Act 1988 (c.50)
	36 (1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 (saving provision in respect of repeal of sections 56 to 58 of the Housing Act 1980) ceases to have effect in relation to tenancies of dwelling-houses in England.
	(2) Accordingly, in that paragraph of that Schedule, after “tenancy” insert “of a dwelling-house in Wales”.’.—(Oliver Heald.)
	This amendment provides that the saving provision in paragraph 3 of Schedule 
	18 to the Hous
	ing Act 1988 ceases to have effect in relation to tenancies of dwelling-houses in England (and so will continue only for Wales). This is because no assured tenancies under section 56 of the Housing Act 1980 remain in existence for England.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Requirements to wear safety helmets: exemption for Sikhs: Northern Ireland

‘(1) Article 13 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 (S.I. 1990/246) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8).
	(2) In paragraph (1), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.
	(3) In paragraph (2), in sub-paragraph (a), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.
	(4) In paragraph (5), in the opening words, for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.
	(5) After paragraph (6) insert—
	“(6A) This Article does not apply to a Sikh who—
	(a) works, or is training to work, in an occupation that involves (to any extent) providing an urgent response to fire, riot or other hazardous situations, and
	(b) is at the workplace—
	(i) to provide such a response in circumstances where the wearing of a safety helmet is necessary to protect the Sikh from a risk of injury, or
	(ii) to receive training in how to provide such a response in circumstances of that kind.
	(6B) This Article also does not apply to a Sikh who—
	(a) is a member of Her Majesty’s forces or a person providing support to Her Majesty’s forces, and
	(b) is at the workplace—
	(i) to take part in a military operation in circumstances where the wearing of a safety helmet is necessary to protect the Sikh from a risk of injury, or
	(ii) to receive training in how to take part in such an operation in circumstances of that kind.”
	(6) In paragraph (7)—
	(a) omit the definitions of “building operations”, “works of engineering construction” and “construction site”;
	(b) before the definition of “injury”, insert—
	““Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006;”;
	(c) at the end insert—
	““workplace” means any premises where work is being undertaken, including premises occupied or normally occupied as a private dwelling; and “premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—
	(a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft, (b) any installation (including a floating installation
	or one resting on the seabed or its subsoil or on other land covered with water or its subsoil), and(c) any tent or moveable structure.”
	(7) In paragraph (8), in sub-paragraph (b), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.
	(8) In the heading, for “on construction sites” substitute “at workplaces”.
	(9) Article 13A of that Order (protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with requirements as to wearing of safety helmets) is amended as follows.
	(10) In paragraph (1)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”;
	(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “on such a site” substitute “at such a workplace”.
	(11) In paragraph (3), for “Paragraphs (7) and (8)” substitute “Paragraphs (6A) to (8)”.’.—(Oliver Heald.)
	This new clause extends the scope of the exemption under Article 13 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, currently limited to construction sites, so that turban-wearing Sikhs will be exempt from legal requirements to wear a safety helmet in a workplace of any kind (subject to exceptions set out in Article 13(6A) and (6B), as amended).
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Oliver Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 72,page1,line1, leave out clause 1.

Oliver Heald: New clause 2 deals with the wearing of safety helmets by the Sikh community in Northern Ireland. Its purpose is to extend the provision in the Bill to Sikhs in Northern Ireland. We discussed the issue in Committee and it was hoped that it would be possible to introduce such a measure. Article 13 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from legal requirements to wear a safety helmet while on a construction site. It also protects employers from liability should a Sikh suffer injuries as a consequence of choosing not to wear a helmet. The new clause extends the scope of the exemption to all workplaces, subject to certain very narrow exclusions, and extends the limited liability provisions associated with the exemption for other persons, such as employers.
	The exemption in the 1990 order was limited to construction sites because, at the time, only workers in the construction industry were mandated to wear safety helmets. Legislative requirements regarding the wearing of safety helmets have since developed and now extend to a number of other industries in which a risk assessment identifies the need for specialist head protection.
	There are certain jobs and industries in which the wearing of a turban may come into conflict with legislative requirements regarding the wearing of safety helmets or other coverings. Employers in non-construction sectors must therefore balance their obligation to protect the health and safety of their employees against their duty not to discriminate against a turban-wearing Sikh employee on the grounds of religion or race.

Philip Davies: Surely one of the cornerstones of British law is that everybody is equal in the face of it. Either people should have to wear helmets for safety reasons or they should not. If a Sikh can give up their decision to wear a safety helmet on religious grounds, why cannot other workers decide not to wear them on grounds that they choose for themselves? Why should we have different laws for different people in this country? Many people find that troubling and offensive.

Oliver Heald: An important history and a religious ethic applicable only to Sikhs are involved in this matter. It is a religious tenet for a Sikh male to wear a turban—that is not true of other religions. It is therefore a special circumstance. While addressing that, I should say what a great contribution the Sikh community makes in our country. Sikhs should be free to practise their religion and that central tenet of it. In certain circumstances, it would be wrong to allow a person not to wear their helmet because of the extreme danger involved—for example, when a fireman goes into a burning building. Really, however, the circumstances where this provision cannot be followed are very narrow.
	Members of the Sikh community in Britain have faced disciplinary hearings and dismissal for refusing to wear head protection and others have been unable to follow their chosen profession. An amendment to the equivalent legislation for Great Britain has already been added to the Bill in Committee. The new clause is considered necessary and sensible to provide consistency across the UK and to allow Sikhs in Northern Ireland to be on a fair and equal footing when seeking employment in various industry sectors. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) would accept that it is right to have consistency across the UK on an issue of such religious importance.
	It may be convenient if I now turn to the Opposition amendment to clause 1, amendment 72, unless, seeing Mr Speaker in the Chair, this is a moment where there is to be a break in proceedings.

Mr Speaker: It is very generous of the Minister to offer the opportunity of a break in the proceedings. It would be churlish of me turn down his offer.

Oliver Heald: Knowing that the House wants to know the answer, I give way. [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the Minister, particularly for his sensitivity to the sensibilities of colleagues.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: I will now announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of a new Chair of the Select Committee on Defence: 479 votes were cast, with one spoilt ballot paper. The counting went to seven stages and 438 valid votes were cast in that round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 220 votes. Mr Rory Stewart was elected Chair, with 226 votes. The other candidate in that round was Dr Julian Lewis, who received 212 votes. Rory Stewart will take up his post immediately.
	May I be the first, on behalf of all colleagues in the House, warmly to congratulate the hon. Gentleman? I am sure I speak for all colleagues when I thank all the other candidates who took part in the election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on both the intranet and the internet for public viewing.

Rory Stewart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to say a huge thank you. It has been an enormous privilege to stand alongside colleagues who have approached this in such a collegiate and kind fashion. I have so much to learn from them. I am a very young and inexperienced new Member and this is a very great honour. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I take this opportunity, perhaps on behalf of all of my colleagues, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on his great success and undertake, as far as I can on behalf of those of us who are members of the Committee, to serve loyally behind him in the months that lie ahead? I thank the Clerks of the House, who carried out the election with absolutely immaculate efficiency.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. His remarks are typically gracious and I think will be acknowledged by the House. If there are no further colleagues wishing to detain the House—they are very welcome to do so in exceptional circumstances, but if they do not choose to do so it is best that we move on. I thank the Minister, who is always sensitive to the atmosphere in the House.

Julian Brazier: rose—

Mr Speaker: Mr Brazier cannot contain himself.

Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you have made the generous offer, Mr Speaker, it falls to those of us who are sitting members of the Committee and competitors to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on a remarkable victory and say how much we will enjoy serving under him.

Mr Speaker: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on those remarks.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be a shame not to join the party. I can only thank all those who supported me, congratulate the winner, commiserate with the other hon. Members who stood and say that I am very sorry for whoever it was who hoped to replace me on the Intelligence and Security Committee—[Laughter.] They will have to wait a little longer.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. With that, I think we should now return to the business of the House. I call the Minister, Oliver Heald, to continue his oration.

Deregulation Bill

Proceedings resumed.

Oliver Heald: I echo the good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and commiserate with the worthy runners up.
	On the Opposition’s amendment 72 to clause 1, the effect of clause 1 is to exempt self-employed persons from health and safety law, except those on a prescribed list of activities, which is to be laid in regulations.

John McDonnell: I believe that a draft list was given to Members in Committee. I tried to obtain it in the Library, but was told that it is not available until the consultation starts. Would it be possible to at least have a copy of what was given to the Committee?

Oliver Heald: Yes, I am sure that that would be possible. I am looking to the Box and to my Parliamentary Private Secretary sitting behind me to see whether that can be achieved. A list was certainly provided. It is not definitive. It was produced on the basis that regulations would be produced and in place by the time of Royal Assent, that there would be proper consultation, and that the Health and Safety Executive would be involved. The idea is that the House has an opportunity to see them and that there is proper consultation on them.
	The Government believe that we should reduce the number of administrative hoops that self-employed people have to jump through to free them up to continue to do their jobs unhindered and to continue to contribute to the UK’s economic growth. Currently, section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 imposes a duty on every self-employed person to have regard to, and protect against, the risks that their undertaking creates both to themselves and others, regardless of the type of activity they are undertaking.

Toby Perkins: Will the Minister expand what the hoops are that self-employed people will no longer have to jump through? In practical terms, for any self-employed person who has the time or inclination to watch the debate, what is it that they will no longer have to do that they would previously have found so burdensome and obstructive to their responsibilities?

Oliver Heald: I will come on to that in a moment. Let me just say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), that the prescribed list of undertakings has been compiled to include high hazard industries or activities. They will be prescribed if one of four criteria is met: where there are high numbers of self-employed people in a particular industry with high rates of injuries or fatalities, for example agriculture; where there is significant risk to members of the public, for example fairgrounds; where there is potential for mass fatalities from, for example, explosives, fireworks and so on; and where there is a European obligation to retain the general duty on self-employed persons, for example in construction, where there is a Council directive imposing duties on the self-employed. That is the nature of the way the list is being compiled.
	In answer to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), at the moment, a self-employed accountant or an author working at home would be under a duty to carry out a risk assessment. He said in Committee that that would be a quick and easy thing to do, but the point is that every self-employed person in the country—we are talking about millions of people—has that duty. The perception that they have an onerous burden on them was identified by Professor Löfstedt at King’s College, the leading expert in risk assessment, who was asked to examine this for the Government. The amendment seeks to limit the number of self-employed persons covered by section 3(2) of the 1974 Act. The change would mean that only self-employed persons who conduct an undertaking of a prescribed description would be covered by the duty. That is what the regulations will prescribe.
	The change has been proposed as a result of the recommendations of Professor Ragnar Löfstedt in his report, “Reclaiming health and safety for all: An independent review of health and safety legislation”, which was published in 2011. He recommended that self-employed persons be exempt from health and safety law where they pose no potential risk of harm to others through their work activity.
	“Prescribed” is defined by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to mean prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. This clause therefore enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purposes of bringing self-employed persons within scope of section 3(2), where their undertaking poses a significant risk of harm. Committee members will have seen a list of prescribed undertakings, which will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary procedure. The list is designed to strike a careful balance between the need to free self-employed people from unnecessary burdens while still providing the important protections to those who need them. The clause was debated in Committee, and the Committee voted for it. I thus urge the hon. Member for Chesterfield and his colleagues not to press the amendment and I urge Members to accept Government new clause 2.

Toby Perkins: I am pleased to speak to new clause 2 and to support amendment 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and me. I start by declaring my interest as a member of Unite the Union, which has made representations on this issue, and by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to discuss these amendments. We are grateful to the Government and others who supported our demand for proper time to debate the important health and safety aspects of the Bill. We felt that the original programme motion might well have denied Members that opportunity.
	Let me respond first to the Minister’s comments about new clause 2. Labour Members warmly welcome the intention to allow Sikhs to wear turbans in place of head protection in all workplaces. Making such a change is important to our Sikh communities and for our country as a whole. I am pleased that the Minister was able to announce the extension of the exemption to Northern Ireland. That will be pleasing to the Sikh community in Northern Ireland and throughout Great Britain. The turban is not only the most visual part of a Sikh’s faith, but a proud part of our island story. We
	want the contribution of Sikhs to be visibly demonstrated in workplaces across the country. The Minister was absolutely right to speak warmly of the contribution that Sikhs have made to Britain. The success of this approach was seen in 2012 when Guardsman Jatinderpal Bhullar became the first turban wearer on guard duty outside Buckingham palace.
	Despite our broad and deep support, we feel that the new clause could be clarified, so let me make a couple of suggestions for the Minister to consider as further improvements. First, on the blanket exclusion for emergency response services and military personnel, we believe that each case should be considered according to its individual merit. What further steps can the Minister take on that? The pace of technological change in the future will never be as slow as it is today—amazing though that may seem to us now—so it would be prudent to keep the mechanisms for making such amendments as flexible and responsive as possible. Why has the Minister not opted to have exclusions set outside the primary legislation as a statutory instrument simply to allow changes to the law to move with the time?

Oliver Heald: The exclusion does not amount to a blanket exemption. It applies only in hazardous operational situations in which the wearing of a safety helmet is considered necessary. That means that all other means of protecting the Sikh must be considered and rejected before that legal requirement would kick in. It is based on circumstances specific to the particular Sikh, and only a very hazardous situation would require this to happen.

Toby Perkins: The Minister may not have understood what I was talking about or I may not have understood what he was talking about. I believe that there is a blanket exemption to the exclusion with respect to emergency response services and military personnel.

Oliver Heald: The exemption applies to the emergency services and the armed forces, but it is not a blanket one. It applies only in hazardous operational situations in which the wearing of the helmet is necessary. The narrow circumstances about a particular Sikh are looked at, and then the decision is made. The aim is that it should apply only in such circumstances as the burning building that I mentioned earlier.

Toby Perkins: I am grateful for that clarification. Will the Minister clarify the definition of “workplace”, as concerns have been raised that the term could be ambiguous and confusing? Could he offer some clarification and perhaps tighten up the definition and the language more generally? For example, would a Sikh working within a vehicle be considered to be working in a workplace?

James Duddridge: rose—

Toby Perkins: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then allow the Minister to respond.

James Duddridge: I am a little confused. If I read it correctly, new clause 2 relates purely to Northern Ireland and replicates what we have already discussed in Committee
	in respect of Great Britain. Will the shadow Minister confirm that point, as well as the Minister who seems to want to leap to his feet? I am concerned about whether we are looking at the general principles that apply to Great Britain or whether the Northern Ireland rules are different. If they are, why is that the case?

Toby Perkins: That is an interesting point. It is important, of course, to get clarity for Sikhs in Northern Ireland but also for Sikhs across Britain. The Minister spoke more broadly, which is important.
	It has been brought to our attention that one interpretation of section 12 of the Employment Act 1989 could have the effect of permitting an employer to use the defence of having a legitimate aim when forcing a Sikh employee to wear a safety helmet in the workplace. This could undermine the new clause’s intention in a similar way to the definition of a workplace. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point in his summing up. I hope that the Minister will listen to and engage with those concerns. All Members—possibly with one exception—want to see this important change delivered, so I hope we can work together on a cross-party basis to achieve it.
	Just as it is important to update and clarify legislation on behalf of Sikh workers, so it is important constantly to review all regulations to ensure that there are no unnecessary burdens that undermine growth. We fear, however, that little of that will be achieved in this wide-ranging—albeit limited in its positive effect—Bill. Fundamental questions need to be answered about the kind of economy and the kind of workplaces that Britain should have now and in the future.
	We sometimes hear voices on the right of the political spectrum arguing that health and safety has gone mad and too far in Britain. Labour Members, however are proud that Britain was a safer place in which to work at the end of the last Government than it had ever been before. We were proud, too, that we delivered the first Olympics in history without a single death occurring during its construction. In the last 20 years, there has been a clear downward trend in the number of fatal injuries in the workplace. In 1993-94, 300 people were killed at work; in 2012-13, that number had fallen to 148. It is proof that strong health and safety legislation, advice and guidance make a difference. When almost 150 people a year still set out for work one morning and never return home, there cannot be any cause whatever for complacency on health and safety.
	Interestingly, in corresponding on Twitter with my constituents and others about the fact that we would debate health and safety legislation today, I received a response from a constituent in Derbyshire. He said, “I bet you’re not going to mention Europe when you get into that debate, because a lot of our health and safety legislation has come from Europe and we should be out of Europe so that we can get rid of all this health and safety legislation.” When I looked at his profile on Twitter, I found out that he had recently joined UKIP—so he is in the right place, at least. It is interesting that, at a time when 150 people a year are still dying at work, we should hear voices on the right saying that we need to get out of Europe so that we can get rid of all these
	health and safety rights and, presumably, increase the number of people who die at work. That was quite a revealing contribution.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Toby Perkins: Now we shall hear from someone who has far more responsible views on health and safety in general, although his views on Europe may be different from mine.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a matter of considerable pride to me that the TUC drove forward the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as part of a deal with the Government on pay. I think that that is one of the greatest pieces of legislation passed by a Labour Government this century—I mean last century.

Toby Perkins: I share my hon. Friend’s tremendous pride in the Act, and he is right to observe that very significant steps were taken in the 1970s. It should also be acknowledged that further steps were taken during the 13 years of Labour government through consultation and work with colleagues in Europe, and that Europe is a much safer workplace for it.
	Back in 1993-94, 20 years ago, self-employed workers accounted for a sixth of all workplace deaths. In 2012-13, they accounted for a third of such deaths. In other words, the self-employed are twice as large a proportion of all those who die at work now as they were 20 years ago. If the Government are serious about driving down workplace deaths, reducing health and safety requirements for the self-employed seems a pretty odd way to start.
	A few years ago funds for the Health and Safety Executive were cut by 35% in a single year, which has led to fewer inspections and the issue of improvement notices. The present Government slowed the progress that we had been making on health and safety. However, we entirely reject the idea that the fact that Labour made that progress means that we favoured excessive regulation. Indeed, we are glad that the important work of the Better Regulation Commission—which was formed as part of the last Government’s commitment to deregulation, and which has played an important part in removing unnecessary burdens and ensuring that more are not unintentionally created when new regulations are introduced—has continued under the present Government.
	The House of Commons Library estimates that businesses benefited to the tune of £3 billion a year as a result of the various deregulatory measures introduced by the last Government. A comparison between that scale of savings and this pygmy of a Bill sends a clear message about who was serious about backing business. However, a sensible approach to regulation is about proportionality, consistency and clarity, and I object in the strongest possible terms to the idea that making workers less safe or less well off is being done in the name of small businesses.
	This Tory-led Government clearly have a view of the type of workplace that they want Britain to be. The Tory vision of the working Britain of the future is of a place in which everyone’s position and rights are insecure and enfeebled employees live in constant fear of losing their jobs, with low security, low wages and zero hours:
	an easy-in, easy-out workplace. The Tories think that a workplace that is engaged in a race to the bottom makes for a competitive economy.

John Cryer: Is there not also a danger that if legislation removes health and safety cover from self-employed people, employers will have an incentive to give employees a bogus status of self-employment, regardless of whether that is appropriate?

Toby Perkins: A substantial part of my speech will deal with precisely that point, because I think it represents perhaps the most fundamental flaw in the Bill. When the Minister presented his idea, he was probably told that it was good news that authors would no longer be suing themselves because their chairs were the wrong height. However, the real impact of the Bill is exactly as my hon. Friend has described it.
	When people ask the Government what they will do about zero hours and the exploitation of workers, the Government misunderstand the question. The easy sacking of workers and the reduction in their rights is not an accident of Tory policy; it is Tory policy. It is precisely what Tory Governments have always been about. Of course, this is not actually called a Tory Government, but it certainly feels pretty much like one. This is what Tory Governments have always done, and they should be honest about that, rather than claiming that they are acting in support of small businesses or in anyone else’s name.
	I was a small business owner myself for five years before I entered Parliament, and I entirely reject the idea that impoverishing workers and stripping them of their rights was done in my name or at my request. That just shows how out of touch the Government are. It is very unfair of them to introduce measures such as this, and then claim that they are doing it in order to support small businesses. In fact, they are doing it because it is what Tory Governments always do.
	As the Minister said, this idea originated in Professor Löfstedt’s report on health and safety regulations, which was published in 2011. We supported most of the report’s recommendations, but we think that the professor failed to understand the nature of the British labour market when he said that the rights of the self-employed in Britain were greater than those granted by some of our European competitors, and, in particular, failed to appreciate the huge growth in false self-employment in this country to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) referred.
	At the end of the last Government, the World Bank said that Britain was the easiest place in Europe in which to set up a new business. That is a key feature of our economy, and in itself it is something to be celebrated. Indeed, the idea that people should pluck up the courage to go it alone and start a new business, should challenge the established order and should find new ways of innovating and different ways of doing things—adopting the values and attributes of entrepreneurs—is very closely aligned with the history of the Labour party. Challenging the established order is precisely what the Labour party has always done. Of course we support people who want to set up their own businesses, but the healthy push towards starting up new firms that was established under Labour—with the spirit of adventure coursing through the veins, and ambition bursting through every
	pore—is very different from the growing move towards bogus or forced self-employment that we have seen under the present this Government.
	Unite has drawn attention to the fact that many workers in the care sector have been pushed into false self-employment, with the result that people on whom much of the fabric of a decent society depends can be sacked without warning, receive no holiday or sick pay, have reduced benefit entitlements, and are denied access to employment tribunals. They do not want to set up their own businesses or become entrepreneurial, but they are being told that the only way in which they can care for the old people for whom they have cared for so many years is to become self-employed. It is important to recognise the difference between those who want to be self-employed and those who are being forced into it.

Chris Williamson: Does this not demonstrate how out of touch the Conservative party and its Liberal Democrat poodles are with the views of the general public? Last week, the results of a Survation poll clearly showed that the overwhelming majority of the British public do not want public services to be delivered by the private sector; they want public services to be delivered by directly accountable public servants who are democratically available for scrutiny by locally and nationally elected politicians.

Toby Perkins: That is an important point. The exact nature of the alliance that was formed will have to be left to the history books to judge. Were the Liberal Democrats willing accomplices who wanted to support everything that the Tory Government did, or were they, as my hon. Friend put it, poodles who were simply excited by the idea of ministerial office, and who decided to join in when they did not really support what was being done?
	I suspect that, as we head towards the 2015 general election, a whole array of Liberal Democrat Ministers will suddenly emerge and say, “They made me do it. I did not really want to pursue that policy. There were tough decisions to be made.” They will try to claim some little bauble: “We may have tripled tuition fees, VAT may have gone up and workers’ rights may have been taxed, but we got something out of it.” We shall see whether, when they bring their agenda to the 2015 election, they throw off the clothes that they have worn for the last five years and claim to be different. What an exciting time we have to look forward to.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying. May I suggest that if the Liberal Democrats vote with us this afternoon, they may save themselves a little bit of shame?

Toby Perkins: The idea that the Liberal Democrats might be able to save themselves a bit of shame is a novel concept—perhaps my hon. Friend is being a little bit too ambitious—but we shall none the less listen with great interest to what they say.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman, in his lurch to the left, seems to have forgotten that when his party was in office, it was in favour of a tenfold increase in contracting out in the NHS, and in favour of flexible working. Those were the things of which his party spoke, as new Labour. Is the hon. Gentleman old Labour?

Toby Perkins: I am one-nation Labour, and one-nation Labour attempts to bring all these different strands of our movement together. There is a huge amount of value in having a flexible work force, but if that works against the best interests of workers, it is reasonable that workers will question whether that is a price worth paying. Some important points have been made about public opinion and we should listen to them. It is also right to consider how, in a modern economy, we bring the best of the private and public sector together. That is what I am in favour of, and that is what the Labour party is in favour of.

Chris Williamson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it serves nobody’s interests to indulge in this race to the bottom and force people into this bogus self-employment, when the reality is that it is an excuse for exploitation? If people have got less money in their pocket, they have less money to spend in the wider economy. That has a negative impact, and we end up in a downward spiral and a situation whereby, as the figures I have seen today from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show, in the last 12 months this so-called economic miracle that we are seeing under this Government has resulted in the top 300,000 seeing an increase in their income after tax, but the rest—29 million taxpayers—have seen a reduction. Bogus self-employment and forcing people into self-employment is contributing to that.

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend makes an important contribution and he is right. The issue of bogus self-employment, and the broader issue of the vision this Government have for our economy, is working very badly for people in our constituencies and working quite well for a small number at the top. It was ever thus; this is what the Conservative party was set up to do. It was set up to ensure that the rights of a privileged few were protected and to try and convince enough of the lower orders to buy into it in the meantime. That is why the Conservatives did not want the lower orders to have the vote for 100-odd years. We all know where they are coming from, and no doubt if they could get rid of the lower orders having the vote now, they would do it again.

Jim Cunningham: Surely one of the tests for the way this Government handle the economy will come very shortly when interest rates go up and the small businesses and entrepreneurs that they boast about cannot get loans to facilitate their business transactions?

Toby Perkins: That is another important dimension. We are in danger of straying slightly from our amendment, but it is important that we see this amendment in the context of the economy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) also made an important point about the impact of all of this on our economy. Not only does it undermine employment rights and leave his constituents and mine worse off, but it also hits taxpayers in the pocket, because according to the Treasury’s own estimate, around 300,000 workers in the construction sector alone are effectively in bogus self-employment. That costs the Treasury more than £380 million every year so there is
	less money going into our public services and into the public coffers because of this issue. This is far from being a construction-site problem, however. That has happened over many years, but in a whole variety of areas—care workers, as spoken about earlier, bookkeepers, sales agents, and from the factory floor to the shop floor—staff who look to all of us to be employers are legally self-employed. While bogus self-employment has previously been predominantly a tax and rights issue, an exemption in respect of health and safety only increases the incentive for employers to pursue this route as a model of recruitment, reducing safety in the workplace, making it an optional extra rather than a hard-won right.
	That changing environment places huge responsibilities on us as law-makers, and they must not be overlooked. Labour in government maintained a flexible workplace, not always, I have to say, to the delight of colleagues across the movement who would have liked further protection. We recognised there was a balance to be struck, however, and we still do, but we did that in a way that aimed to ensure that protection against the exploitation of individuals was not sacrificed in exchange. If these Tories really were the workers party, they would understand that a flexible workplace that works against the public interest is bad for Britain and bad for business, too.
	Returning to this new clause, no self-employed person has ever been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution only for risking their own health. Given that the Bill’s intention is that only people who pose no risk to anybody will be exempt, there will be no practical impact on businesses or individuals. The Health and Safety Executive consulted on Ofsted’s proposals in 2012 and the majority of those responding to the consultation opposed the idea. All in all, I and many other small business owners would recognise the picture painted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which has said that many low-risk, self-employed individuals are
	“de facto, already exempt…They will never be routinely inspected. And they are not going to sue themselves if they have an accident!”
	If there are no known cases of the self-employed suing themselves and no prosecutions that are being prevented, this is a solution in search of a problem to solve.
	The problem it in fact attempts to solve is the perception that this Government have over-promised and under-delivered on regulation. Whenever we hear the Minister defend this, he does not have a lot to say about anyone who will positively benefit. What he says is that there will be a perception that there is less people have to do before they become self-employed. Well, he can say that to the carers, who are being told that they are now self-employed when looking after the old lady they have been looking after for the past 20 years. He should ask whether that removes a disincentive to them setting up a business. That is the reality of what is happening under this Government.

Chris Williamson: rose—

Toby Perkins: I never cease to be delighted to hear from my hon. Friend, so I will give way to him again.

Chris Williamson: I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech immensely. I had the privilege of serving on the Committee with my hon. Friend, and does he agree that this is a very wide-ranging Bill? A hell of a lot of effort
	has been put into it by Ministers, yet it has achieved so very little. Has there ever been a Bill where so much effort has gone in with so very little impact and positive outcome for the British people?

Toby Perkins: That is an interesting point, and it brings to mind a gentleman who was a team mate of mine at Sheffield Tigers rugby club. He had a huge neck and giant shoulders—he was a great big bear of a man—but from the waist down he had tiny, short, very thin legs. He was one of those people who, when he stood up, apparently shrank, so he earned the name “the giant little man”, and this is a giant little Bill. There is huge scope to it and very little that is got out of it at the end—but I am digressing slightly.
	That was, in fact, precisely the point I was about to come on to in my speech, so I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Alongside the minuscule benefit and very real consequences for the bogus self-employed, there is also the confusion that is likely to be caused and the messages that sends about health and safety as being an optional extra, rather than something businesses should always attend to.
	Entrepreneurs and micro-business owners might wrongly believe they are now exempt from health and safety obligations towards clients and visitors to their premises. We know that that is not the reality of what this Bill does, but it is all about perception. If people are now being told, “If you’re self-employed, you don’t have to worry about health and safety,” it is unsurprising if that is the explanation people hear.
	In its evidence to the Joint Committee, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health described the decision to exempt certain self-employed individuals as “unnecessary, unhelpful and unwise”. It foresaw a lowering of standards and a lack of clarity about who was, or was not, covered.
	The current system is clear and there is no compelling reason for this change. There is no list of self-employed martyrs brought to the courts because of badly adjusted blinds in their offices, who, having fought the issue to the highest court in the land, have now decided that, because the glare on the screen was a bit bright and it hurt their eyes, they will sue themselves. This group of people does not exist as one for us to stand up for in this place, so there is no compelling reason for this change.
	For all the reasons I have outlined, we think this is a much-mistaken clause and our amendment would simply remove it. However, even if the Government do not listen to all the voices arguing against the clause in its entirety, there are serious and important flaws in its drafting that they really should look at. It will be interpreted—the Solicitor-General admitted as much in Committee—such that the exemption from the exemption will be based on whether someone’s work is in a job that is considered to pose a risk to them or to others. However, it pays no attention to whether they are responsible for the safety of their workplace. So a self-employed person working in someone else’s workplace, who to all intents and purposes appears to be employed, is in fact self-employed, has no say in the quality of the health and safety regulations administered there, and would be exempt from protection. The clause makes no reference to whether they are responsible for the safety of their workplace—it assumes they would be, but as we have heard, that is not the case—or to whether the
	workplace itself is dangerous. So, someone who is in a dangerous workplace, but in a job that is considered not dangerous, will not be covered. For example, because a sales agent selling construction goods on a building site on a self-employed basis is not in dangerous job, they would be exempt from protection on health and safety grounds, despite working in an environment in which an average of almost 60 people have died every year during the past 13 years.

James Duddridge: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on what he has just said and confirm that it is correct? Anybody who goes on to a construction site—be they a customer, a passing individual, a self-employed person or an employed person—is subject to health and safety relating to that geographic zone. Their employment status does not matter. Whether they are a full-time employee, self-employed, a customer or a salesman, they still get that health and safety protection.

Toby Perkins: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is making a disingenuous point. There might be certain legal protections associated with the workplace—or place of being; it would not be a “workplace” in some of the cases he cites—but there would be no protection as an employee whatsoever.
	The issue of people in non-dangerous jobs working in dangerous environments must not be ignored. The message that health and safety is now an optional extra if staff can be got on to self-employed contracts is very serious indeed. In Committee, Labour sought to work with the Tory-led Government to find a way around these problems. We sought clarification from them on exactly what jobs will be excluded, asked for reassurance that significant protections will be in place, tabled amendments and made suggestions, but all those were rejected. If the House does not support our amendment today, clause 1 will mean weaker health and safety protection for the growing army of employed self-employed people, and uncertainty in the minds of the self-employed about whether they have obligations in the first place. The Government are sending out the message that health and safety is not something for all workplaces at all times, but something to be negotiated and traded away. This will be a slap in the face for the families of anyone killed in their workplace, including those of the 50 self-employed people who lost their lives at work last year. I call on the House to support our amendment and to say loud and clear, “Britain is safer today. We are not going back.”

James Duddridge: It is a privilege to speak in this debate, although I do feel we are going round in circles somewhat. Having sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee with eminent Members of the Lords and Commons—plus myself—and having then had the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee and, during that time, chairing the Regulatory Reform Committee, I feel “regulationed out”, just as a number of business people do.
	I want to concentrate on amendment 72, but first I want briefly to discuss Government new clause 2. I would appreciate it if the Minister cleared up the confusion over whether Northern Ireland is being treated exactly the same as Great Britain in respect of Sikhs. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) used the
	opportunity, completely reasonably, to look back at some of those arguments, rather than at a differential between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I remember visiting the small Sikh community in Southend as a candidate in 2004, and expecting them to raise lots of technical religious issues and issues relating to the Sikh community. However, they wanted to discuss law and order, good education for their kids and lower taxation, and did not bring up the issue we have been discussing; however, that does not make it unimportant, and it is a good one to raise. The omission of Northern Ireland in our initial considerations was not great, and it is good that the Government are now remedying that.
	There was much discussion, both during pre-legislative scrutiny and in Committee, of the issue addressed by amendment 72, and the Opposition clearly disagreed with the general principle being put forward and questioned the need. I am disappointed that they could not propose something more sophisticated than just knocking out the whole of clause 1. At times I felt that there was a degree of consensus on some of these issues, so I am disappointed that a more nuanced alternative has not been found. However, using amendment 72 as a probing amendment is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
	There is a lot of talk about perception, but we are going beyond that here; there is a fear involved in setting up one’s own business. I have been involved in setting up two businesses, one of which was very successful and has now floated on the alternative investment market, one of which was less successful and passed into abeyance, winding up without leaving any debts. In both cases things such as health and safety were rightly a concern—

Karl Turner: indicated dissent.

James Duddridge: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head but I am saying that, although health and safety was rightly a concern, it was a barrier to setting up a legal entity early on in both cases. He asks, from a sedentary position, what the reason was for that. When someone is setting up a new business—this is certainly what I found—they ask what things they have to consider and then prioritise them. So there is no point in someone even thinking of setting up a business unless they have customers and a product, and unless they can do it in a profitable way over time and have the financing in place. Those things are in the person’s mind, but then there is another level of issues for them to consider: where do they go? How do they employ people? What are the health and safety considerations?
	Early on, when someone is setting up the company, they should be able to set aside the health and safety things and say, “When I am forming that company, as an individual with only myself to be concerned with, health and safety, at that juncture, is not something that I need to concern myself with as a barrier to entry into that workplace.” Having established the business, the person can then go on to look at all those details before they start engaging employees or start risking health and safety in any way. My fear is that, in itself, it is a barrier to starting that business and, thus, to employing people.

Chris Williamson: The hon. Gentleman would have more credibility on the concerns he is articulating about the barriers facing businesses starting up if he had supported the amendment in Committee, which called for a review of the licensing regime. For example, someone setting up a restaurant needs to comply with seven or eight different licences. Surely that would be a more appropriate approach to take, rather than undermining health and safety.

James Duddridge: It would be an additional benefit to look at these things sector by sector, as the Better Regulation Commission is doing—and is reducing regulation. However, I fear I am straying slightly, as we have done today, away from the pure health and safety issues. The hon. Member for Chesterfield kindly took an intervention on the concept of who is protected on a building site and I must admit that I am still confused. There is a case for stopping people being self-employed from an employment rights perspective—we can debate that, although not today. But although these bogus self-employed individuals take themselves out of a certain type of health and safety liability, by being on the site—by being in the care home or on the building site—they are subject to health and safety rules. There may be a case to make that those rules are too weak or that they are not the same as in an employment relationship, but people are still subject to them.
	As I said at the start, something more nuanced could have been proposed, because there is a risk that people do not set up businesses because they are concerned about the overall level of bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the World Bank, saying that we are already at the cutting edge for being able to set up businesses, but if we do not look to move forward and constantly improve, as our competitors are doing, biting at our heels, we will fall behind in business growth, in growth and in employment. I say that on a day when I learned from the BBC that employment is at its highest level since 1971, when records were first kept. There is no health and safety protection if one does not have a job. Getting people into employment is a step in the right direction, and getting people involved in high-quality jobs with high-quality health and safety is a further improvement, but it is still a stepping stone. For those reasons, while I support Government new clause 1, I would vote against amendment 72 if it were pushed to a vote.

John McDonnell: May I first say that I welcome the new clause relating to the Sikh community? I chair the all-party group on the Punjabi community in Britain, and for a number of years there has been an issue, and it is helpful to get it out of the way now, once and for all. Others have also received representations on the matter, so today’s debate has been useful.
	I will be straight with the Minister: I am really worried about this part of the Bill. Before I go into that, I will, like others, outline my background. First, let me refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Unite has just made a contribution to my constituency party for campaigning. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority tells me that we do not have to declare such payments, but I have anyway. I have not received the Unite briefing, but I understand that it has been lobbying on this matter.
	I come to this matter from a trade union background—from the shop floor. When I first left college, I worked for the National Union of Mineworkers. Obviously, health and safety was a critical issue for mineworkers. However, it concerned not just those working in the mines but those involved on the surface, in deliveries and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has described the process of health and safety at work. The trade unions initially tried to tackle health and safety issues on an industry-by-industry basis. The reason why the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 came about was that we wanted comprehensive overall protection, which is why it was a global Bill; we did not want anyone to miss out. Individual pieces of legislation would not have given us that comprehensive cover.
	At that point in time, self-employment was not a big issue, but it is now. The expansion of self-employment in this country—my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) gave some figures on that—has been massive. That is partly because people who have lost their job or who have had their job privatised in some form have been pushed into self-employment; some choose it willingly, but others choose it because it is the only option. It is a fact that deaths at work and occupational injuries for the self-employed are twice the rate for the directly employed. If we look at recent TUC statistics on deaths, we will see that there have been 16 fatalities in the past four months, the bulk of which were among the self-employed. Clearly, therefore, there is an issue of health and safety among the self-employed.
	Up until now, the simplicity of the legislation has meant that everyone knows that they are covered no matter what. No matter where they are working or what aspect of self-employment they are involved in, they know they are covered by the legislation. My worry is that legislating to solve one problem produces much bigger problems. I accept that there may be an element of truth behind some of the myths of the health and safety culture. Some small examples may be run in the Daily Mail, and we will all agree that they are daft, but the bulk of health and safety legislation protects people. There are too many people dying or being seriously injured at work at the moment. When we meet the families of victims, we understand why health and safety is such a cornerstone, and so essential in protecting people at work. As soon as we try to resolve some of the smaller exaggerations of the health and safety at work legislation, we then open up the possibility of absolute confusion about what is going on.
	We will spend the next few months on the consultation about the list. Endless hours will be spent trying to identify what activities are included on the list and what activities are not included. We have already heard something like that today with the issue of what happens in the construction industry.
	I have been dealing with Crossrail. Some Members may be aware that a few weeks ago, after a fatality at Crossrail, an extremely damning report about health and safety attitudes on the Crossrail project was published in the media. I am meeting Crossrail management and the unions to try to see how we can resolve those matters. It will be argued that Crossrail will be covered by these provisions because it is part of the construction sector, but the question comes up of what will happen
	with deliveries to Crossrail sites. Will they be covered when they are purely on the construction site or will they be covered on their way to a Crossrail site?
	We will have endless debates and arguments about what happens in construction, which is the area where self-employment has grown in recent years. We have heard about false self-employment, and a lot of construction workers today are basically told to be self-employed or they will not get a job. It is as simple as that and if they try to argue against it they do not get work the following week. That is one of the big battles being joined at the moment by Unite and other unions, including the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians.

Mike Thornton: I used to do an awful lot of work in financial services for people who worked on construction sites. Nearly all of them worked under the old construction industry scheme, or CIS, under which they were classified as self-employed. That was permanent throughout the construction sector throughout the past 20 or 30 years. Surely people being self-employed within the construction industry is nothing new.

John McDonnell: No, it is not, but a lot of those workers who were directly employed have in recent years been forced into self-employment against their will. That is the only way that they have been able to get work. If we consider the role of agents in a lot of this, we can see that it is a way of avoiding taxation for some.

Andrew McDonald: Does my hon. Friend recall the words of Lord Denning many years ago when dealing with this very issue of bogus descriptions? Somebody controls the place of work, the rate of pay and the hours that are worked. We can call a Mini a Rolls-Royce, but it is still a Mini.

John McDonnell: I have been involved in some of the direct action campaigns on sites across London over the past two years. Few major firms are left in London that employ people directly; they now employ individuals who are classified as self-employed. They have not gone into self-employment willingly, but have been forced into it simply to get the work.
	Let me go back to my major theme. Throughout its history, our health and safety legislation has been based on the precautionary principle of trying to ensure that we prevent as much as we possibly can the risks of individual sectors. I have seen the list that the Minister has kindly supplied us with this afternoon and, to be frank, I think—I am not saying this in any critical way—that if we are going to go down the route of having a list system, it would have been better for us to have had the list well in advance for consultation and discussion. Nevertheless, that is what we will have now.
	Let me give some examples from the list. The category for high-risk activities relating to public safety includes the:
	“Organisation and operation of exhibitions, fairgrounds, amusement parks, theme parks, zoos, circuses, public fireworks displays and adventure activities,”
	but not festivals and concerts, which have some of the highest risks of such outside activities. For offshore activities, it includes
	“operators, owners, installation managers, well operators and any persons under various Offshore Regulations”,
	but some of the highest risk in the offshore industry is land-based, at the port, before the equipment is transferred out.
	In years to come, we will define item by item what is on the list and what is not. It is all well and good publishing a list of what is covered, but if people want absolute clarity we should also publish a list of what is not included. Let me give another example, which I think came up in Committee. If a plumber—they are largely self-employed—is working in a person’s home, will they be covered or not? Are electricians working in people’s homes covered or not? I am not sure from this list, and that is the issue. All our health and safety legislation up to now has been based on the precautionary principle of comprehensive coverage so that everyone is protected, including the workers and the general public in whose environment they are working, but we are now in a situation where no one will know or be absolutely clear about their coverage. As a local MP I have used health and safety legislation on a number of occasions to get the local authority to take action against self-employed workers on particular sites that are putting the general public at risk.
	I give as an example from the list waste management, which covers waste collection, treatment and disposal, materials recovery and remediation activities. A range of recycling activities are going on in my community. I am not sure now whether those would be described as waste management or recycling, and whether they are covered by the list. In my area we have had cases of fly-tipping and dumping in which we have even used health and safety legislation against individuals who participated in those fringe activities linked to recycling.
	In trying to solve a relatively minor problem, we are opening up a can of worms that will engage this Government as long as they exist—the next 12 months—in a long debate with everyone involved, including employers, employees, trade unions and the general public to define what is and is not on the list. The Minister should get used to some overtime in the next few months.

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend is making an important contribution. He is right to say that there is a perception that health and safety is sometimes over-zealously pursued, but the real problem that the Government are trying to solve is their polling position. They are trying to show people that they are taking action in this area, they want to be able to tell businesses about all the deregulation they are undertaking, but they are not solving the problems facing small businesses.

John McDonnell: If the Government are going to legislate on the basis of hearsay and almost prejudice, they wind up with legislation that renders itself ineffective in the long run. I genuinely cannot see how the list could be implemented effectively.

Oliver Heald: I am following the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he should appreciate that the detailed regulations will be consulted
	on, which will include proper definitions. He has a list of activities, but the consultation will bore down into the detail. If he or his constituents have particular concerns, he will be able to raise those points and the Government will take account of them.

John McDonnell: That worries me even more. I make this not as a party political point, but as a practical governmental point: that means that the legislation is a leap in the dark, before we know in any detail the consequences of what we are doing.
	The Government have been looking at the matter for three years now. I met Lord—I have forgotten his name. He got the sack after having a few drinks too many at a reception. I met the original Lord who was consulting on this. He turned up with an individual who I thought was his butler. It was an adviser. He eventually got the push because he had a few drinks too many and said some unwise words. He was so impressive that I cannot remember his name. I met him three years ago when the measure was first mooted. We went through examples of what he thought was unnecessary health and safety legislation in certain areas. One of the areas he was looking at was shops, so I introduced him to the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which explained to him that health and safety matters were a worry in shops where its workers were.
	From that original prejudicial approach, I thought the Government were going to lay out in detail how the duties would be implemented. To introduce the legislation without such detail in such an important area will render the legislation ineffective and put people at risk.

John Cryer: What my hon. Friend says about risk is right. In Committee, we asked time and again for a definitive list. The Government kept amending the list. I do not know which version we are on now, but we are almost at the end of the parliamentary process on the Bill, and the Government are now saying that they will consult. That should have been done right at the start of the process; if it had, we would now know what we were dealing with.

John McDonnell: There are times when one legislates on the principle and then rolls out the practical implications, but I agree with my hon. Friend that in this instance, because of the legislation’s significance and because the detail is so important to whether it is viable, in the three years when the consultation was supposed to be going on we could have drilled down into the detail and then come back with effective legislation, which would have achieved some element of consensus. Instead we have absolute confusion, and in health and safety matters that means risk. I will vote for the amendment, but I deeply regret the way in which the legislation has been brought forward. The risks that will be incurred will affect many of us, throughout all these different industries, but more broadly, as self-employment now grows, not only will self-employed workers be put at risk, but the general public as well. That is why the Minister needs to think again very seriously.

Chris Williamson: I rise to speak in support of amendment 72 and I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the proposals for the Sikh community, which are a welcome step.
	I do not know whether it is because the Solicitor-General is behind the proposal, but to me it represents a lawyer’s charter. My hon. Friend has already made the point that the prescribed list simply adds to the confusion rather than providing clarity. I am a simple chap, an ex-bricklayer who certainly benefited from the health and safety regime, and I would like to know what is wrong with the present legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) referred to the futility of the proposition in terms of those who are self-employed and not at any great risk, but who have never been prosecuted or are likely to take action against themselves in any event, but my real concern is that the Government are creating significant confusion, which will put people at greater risk.
	Other hon. Members have made the point that self-employed people are on average twice as likely to die at work as employed workers. At a time when 4.2 million people are self-employed that is a growing concern, and not just for the individuals who are putting themselves at greater risk and who will go to work one day, as my hon. Friend said, and never return. That is devastating for the families of those individuals, and it is a complete waste of human life. In crude monetary terms, it has a negative impact on the economy, because their productive life is lost to the economy.
	We have to take account not only of those who are more likely to die, but of those self-employed workers who are more likely to sustain an industrial injury, and this proposal will make matters worse. We have already spoken about people being forced into self-employment and bogus self-employment. People who are in effect employed earners but are forced into a self-employment do not benefit from the protections accorded to employed earners, and that should be a matter of concern for all of us.
	I shall take my previous life in the construction sector as an example. Because of the confusion, we do not know from what the Government have said whether self-employed earners working in a domestic setting will be covered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has pointed out.

John McDonnell: We have only one copy of the list—that is how we have been treated today—but we shall share it. I will give one example, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to respond to it. According to the list, construction is covered overall, and a number of activities are listed under construction. However, there are sites where there is no construction going on but there is painting and decorating, which is not listed. If no construction was going on and some self-employed painters and decorators—there are a large number of them—turned up to work on the site, they would not be covered because their work would not be construed as construction. However, painting and decorating is actually quite a risky occupation, for the painter and decorator and for the public, because of the use of ladders, scaffolding and so on.

Chris Williamson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is potentially an incredibly hazardous occupation, for the very reason he outlines: the use of ladders, scaffolding and so on.

John McDonnell: Painters and decorators are not covered, but people on high wires in circuses are. This is getting bizarre.

Chris Williamson: That is the point, is it not? The beauty of the existing legislation is that it is very clear. Even a former bricklayer like me can understand it. We know that everybody is covered by it. The Government are saying, “We are the great deregulators and we want to free up the self-employed to become great entrepreneurs”, but the reality is that they are creating a huge amount of confusion and putting people at risk, which will put a greater burden on our national health service. The reality is that more and more people who are forced into bogus self-employment schemes will find themselves at much greater risk.
	I mentioned in an earlier intervention the concerns and fears of an individual setting up a business for the first time about the impact of health and safety obligations. The Government had the opportunity in Committee to do something that would have genuinely benefited those considering setting up in self-employment for the first time: reviewing the plethora of licences—150-odd—that local authorities are responsible for. I gave the example of a restaurateur, who must comply with eight or nine licensing regimes. Yet the Government had no sympathy and I believe they even voted against the proposal. I actually tabled another amendment, which regrettably has not been selected, to increase the period in which a review could take place, which we initially called for in Committee.
	The Government try to give the impression that they are on the side of entrepreneurs and the self-employed, but the reality is quite the opposite because they are putting people at greater risk. The race to the bottom reduces people’s terms and conditions, and this all has a negative impact on the wider economy. There are 4.2 million self-employed people in the country, but instead of its being a cause for celebration I am concerned that many of them are earning very low incomes. That has a negative impact on the wider economy, because they have less money in their pockets to make a difference. The Prime Minister constantly goes on at PMQs about the number of new jobs being created, but he is silent about the fact that many of them are part time or involve zero-hours contracts, and self-employment comes into that. Many people are forced into self-employment because they have no alternative. They are forced to accept a pittance of a wage.
	We also know from recent statistics that there has been a huge increase in the number of people who cannot afford to pay their rent because they are on such low incomes and so are having to claim housing benefit.
	As my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield and for Hayes and Harlington have made clear, the amendment is absolutely sensible. The Government have been singularly incapable of providing any legitimate justification for their proposal. They are going to create a lawyers charter. The most significant growth that will come out of this is for lawyers, because it is bound to lead to challenges through the law courts. Is that what we really want? I would suggest not. What is wrong with the existing legislation? It is straightforward and simple. We are not all lawyers like the Solicitor-General; perhaps he can understand it with his great intellect. As I said, I am just a simple bricklayer, and I can understand the current legislation, but I cannot understand what is before us today.
	The list is certainly not exhaustive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, if we are to have a list of what is included, we also need a list of what is not included. I challenge the Minister to give us some indication of what would not be included. He would not be able to tell us, because that will be discovered only through case law. That is a very regrettable state of affairs, and it is not a direction of travel that we should be taking in this country.
	Of course we want to liberate people to be able to become self-employed if that is what they want, but we must create the right environment—the right conditions—so that they can make a good, decent living out of it. This most certainly will not achieve that goal. It will confuse matters and make them worse, and it will have a very negative impact on the wider economy and on our already pressured national health service. I therefore hope that the Minister can find it within himself to acknowledge that he has made a mistake and that the Government have got this wrong. They need to listen to the sensible words of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and the wise and sage words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.
	I do not think the Government conceded anything in Committee. For all the sensible amendments that we proposed, I do not think they accepted any of them. They conceded very little, if anything at all, certainly on the days that I was there. I missed a couple of sittings at the end when I was visiting Qatar and looking at the horrendous health and safety in that country, with the 1,200 workers who have already lost their lives building the infrastructure for the World cup. That seems to be the direction of travel in which the Government want to take the United Kingdom.
	In a spirit of cross-party consensus, I call on the Minister to reflect on what has been said and to make the right choice in the interests of self-employed people, health and safety, and our wider economy.

John Cryer: My hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and I served on the Committee, where this was one of the most controversial elements of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, the list has gone through all sorts of vexed changes and debates. In Committee, we were already on the third or fourth version. The sorts of questions he has asked today—“Why is this on the list?”, “Why is that not on the list?”—were being asked then.

Oliver Heald: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the lively debate on this subject, but only one list was produced for Members, and it is the list that has been produced today.

John Cryer: If I am mistaken, I apologise. I remember seeing at least two versions, but perhaps I have got that slightly wrong. Nevertheless, there is still controversy over why certain occupations are on the list and others are left off. I am concerned that the Bill is nearing the end of its progress, yet nobody is quite sure what will be on the list and what will not. The Solicitor-General said in Committee that the Government would consult on the issue, but that should have been done some months
	ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, the discussions have been going on for about three years and it is only now that we are getting anywhere near some sort of public consultation.

Toby Perkins: It may well be that there was only one piece of paper, but in Committee it was as if there was an organic process by which the interpretation of the list and the meaning of the Bill changed in front of our very eyes. I am not entirely sure whether that is reflected on a piece of paper, but it was very clear that what it meant either was not entirely understood or that it changed as we sat in Committee.

John Cryer: Perhaps I am a victim of my own fevered imagination when it comes to the list, but I thought I remembered seeing different versions. My hon. Friend is right about the list.

Oliver Heald: It may be that what the hon. Gentleman is remembering is the different approach taken by the Joint Committee. It came up with different proposals, to which the Government responded with the list.

John Cryer: Okay, I am prepared to accept that.

Katy Clark: Is the maritime sector on the list? I have been advised that it is not. Was there any discussion in Committee about whether the sector—ferries, ships and so on—should be on the list?

John Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I do not remember any specific discussion about whether maritime occupations should be on the list. Perhaps that was partly because we had a separate, lengthy and passionate discussion about maritime investigations. The RMT represents not all but most seafarers, and that discussion took place, oddly enough, just after it was announced that Bob Crow had passed away, and I think that added to the passion in the debate.

John McDonnell: There is a reason for the concern. It has been argued that there is not an awful lot of self-employment in the maritime sector, but there is. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do, because he was involved in this, the issues with the Thames cruises, where there is self-employment: individual families own their own boats and there is a licensing regime. Health and safety still needs to be applied to them, but they do not seem to be anywhere near the list.

John Cryer: I do not have the list in front of me, but I accept what my hon. Friend says. One of the things that has changed in the past few years—this has happened relatively recently—is that an awful lot of industries now have extensive groups of self-employed people. My hon. Friend mentioned that earlier in his career he worked for the National Union of Mineworkers. It is not particularly widely recognised that most miners—there are not many of them around nowadays, because successive Conservative Governments massacred the deep-mining industry—are self-employed or agency workers, and many of them are on virtually zero-hours contracts.
	I think there is a view that anyone working at a deep mine in Hatfield or any of the others that still exist does so for an employer on a normal pay-as-you-earn basis. The reality is that most people who work in mines are self-employed in a very dangerous industry, and some of them—probably those who work on the surface, rather than those who work underground—will be removed from health and safety cover as a result of this Bill. At the very least, confusion will reign, because nobody is quite sure whom the Bill covers and whom it does not.
	One of the many bases of this Bill is the idea that there is still a hard and fast division between those who are employed and those who are self-employed. That traditional view of the workplace was accurate 30, 40 or 50 years ago, but it does not apply now, because increasing numbers of people are self-employed and increasing numbers of people come under what Labour Members would call bogus self-employment. These are people who have been shifted to a self-employed status, sometimes against their will. There are examples of work forces who wake up one morning to discover that they are suddenly self-employed, having not been consulted. Before the Solicitor-General is moved to intervene, I know that that is illegal, but I think it is indicative of the world of work that we have today.
	Disreputable employers already have several incentives for moving people to self-employed status, including the ability to abandon many of their normal responsibilities—the duty to pay national insurance, sick pay, holiday pay and so forth. More and more companies are now offering different routes for shifting work forces to self-employment. In Committee, I gave the example of the role of payroll companies, which go to normal construction companies—this happens a lot in construction—and say, “Give us your payroll responsibilities. We’ll look after paying the work force. We’ll shift them all to self-employed. As a result, you will escape responsibility for paying NI, holiday pay, sick pay and all the rest of it.” Another impetus is the fact that, because of the cuts to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, it does far fewer compliance inspections than it did five or six—or even two—years ago. The idea that employers will be caught out shifting people to bogus self-employment by HMRC is less likely; it is more likely that they will get away with it.
	The Bill provides another incentive to companies—not just those in construction, but in other industries as well—to move people to self-employment so that they can escape their responsibilities. If someone running a construction company who does not particularly care about his or her employees is told, “Well, if they’re not self-employed, they’re not covered by health and safety”, that is another incentive, encouragement or green light to employers to engage in such processes. Some of the processes are legal or on the fringe of legality, but many employers are still getting away with it. The irony is that many of the most dangerous industries, such as construction and agriculture, already have a very high level of self-employment. In some industries, we are moving to a position in which we are seeing the virtual abolition of regular full-time employment.
	The TUC issued a briefing earlier today. Many Government Members think that the TUC is populated by blokes who are blood-soaked lefties and all about 8 ft tall, with biceps the size of Bournemouth.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I both worked at the TUC, and I do not think we fit that description.

John Cryer: I cannot imagine two more moderate figures in the House than my two hon. Friends. The reality is that the TUC is a very moderate organisation. When I worked as a political officer at Unite, I dealt extensively with it, particularly with the then general secretary, Brendan Barber. Whatever the views of Conservative Members, a person could not wish to meet a more moderate man—almost outrageously moderate—than Brendan Barber. His successor, Frances O’Grady, is a similarly moderate person.
	The TUC briefing points out:
	“The Bill states that the proposals are being done ‘for the reduction of burdens resulting from legislation for businesses or other organisations or for individuals’. In fact it does the opposite as it does not actually change the situation for those who genuinely do not pose a risk to others and only creates complete confusion for all the other self-employed.”
	That very mildly and moderately expressed point of view raises the genuine concern that the provision will create confusion for an awful lot of the work force, many of whom work in some of the most dangerous sectors of the economy.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I had the pleasure of working at the TUC for five years, during which the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was brought in. There is no doubt that thousands of lives have been saved and thousands of injuries prevented as a result of that Act.
	I remember that, as a student in the 1960s, I worked in the vacations. I think I am probably the oldest person here. [Interruption.] Well, yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is extremely old. In those days, we typically worked in factories during the holidays. I remember the horrendous lack of health and safety—unguarded machines, poisonous chemicals, no hard hats—but that was the life people led. I used to put the guards on the machines that I worked on. They were lying on the ground, but their use was not enforced.
	This proposal is undoubtedly a weakening of the 1974 Act and it will inevitably lead to more people dying and being injured. I will look at the statistics in coming years if clause 1 goes through. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and my other hon. Friends who have spoken have persuaded the Government to drop the clause and that common sense will return, but there is no sign of that.
	I well remember the 1974 Act going through and I was proud to be a member of the TUC staff. Going back even further, in my early days at the TUC, I was responsible for setting up the TUC construction industry committee. When I prepared the papers for that committee, the two big issues were bogus self-employment and health and safety. More than 40 years later, there is even more bogus self-employment. At that time, it was essentially restricted to the construction sector and was called “the lump”. People may remember the lump. There was an impressive TUC drama about it. Before the 1974 Act,
	people worked in unregulated self-employment and accidents occurred. In the drama, there was an deep trench and a man was buried alive because the shuttering was not there and was not enforced. We hoped that that sort of thing had been stopped.
	Some time later, I worked for another trade union, the National and Local Government Officers Association, which is now Unison. I used to attend the TUC construction committee as a trade union representative. I remember supporting Frank Chapple on enforcing the wearing of hard hats on building sites. We had different views on many things, but on that, we were as one. People would not wear hard hats unless they were told, “If you don’t wear a hard hat, you don’t work here.” That has to be enforced.
	That brings me to my main point, which is that, rather than being weakened, the 1974 Act should be strengthened. We need proper enforcement. We have been sent briefings by a number of trade unions and the TUC. The Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union says that in the entertainment and media sector, there is a very high proportion of self-employed people and a very low level of accident reporting. We need more enforcement and more reporting, so the Act needs strengthening, not weakening.

Katy Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is highly concerning that the Health and Safety Executive has received such huge funding cuts and that there has been such a reduction in workplace health and safety inspections?

Kelvin Hopkins: Yes, indeed. One of my former colleagues at the TUC, Sir Bill Callaghan, who used to be the chair of the Health and Safety Commission, was alarmed at the threats to the funding and the future of the Health and Safety Executive. Interestingly, when the HSE did a consultation exercise on this issue, a majority of respondents were against what the Government are proposing. The HSE is obviously under-resourced. I want it to be strengthened and to have more resources so that it can save more lives and prevent more injuries.
	I will give another anecdote about a recent experience. There were two men working on the pavement outside my house with a diamond-edged cutting disc—the sort of machine that is used to cut stone, brick or concrete. They had no goggles, no hard hats and no ear defenders. I went up to ask what they were doing. I was not going to comment on health and safety. They were clearly eastern European and did not understand English very well. The TUC has said:
	“Migrant workers are also more likely to be self-employed and are more likely to have a poor command of English, which means that they need support and guidance from the HSE. Sex out of ten Rumanian and Bulgarian immigrants living in Britain last year were working as self-employed.”
	We are talking about a whole sector. Hundreds of thousands of people will be less likely to be protected by health and safety regulations and laws. I think we ought to strengthen the Health and Safety Executive and the 1974 Act. We ought to provide the resources that are needed to ensure that it is enforced properly. There are a number of points that I was going to make, but they have been made strongly by my hon. Friends.

John McDonnell: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has seen the list. In the past, we have raised the risks on the docks, where self-employment is increasingly
	becoming the norm. My dad used to be a Liverpool docker and he lost a finger as a result of an industrial accident. Although offshore activities are listed, there is nothing about the docks. That whole sector is excluded from the list, yet it is an extremely dangerous area of activity.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am sure we could find many areas where health and safety risks are not being addressed, even under existing legislation. We want such legislation to be strengthened, not weakened, but because of the logic of the situation the list of exemptions will inevitably mean that more people die or suffer injuries as a result of the clause. I strongly support my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and other hon. Friends, in calling on the Government to abandon clause 1, accept the amendment, and return to common sense.

Katy Clark: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which indicates that the trade union Unite recently made a financial donation to the Labour party in part of my constituency. I am not sure whether I am strictly required to make that reference, but Unite is hugely concerned—as are all British trade unions—about the Government’s stance on this matter.
	As the Minister said in his opening remarks, the recommendation in the Bill came from the Löfstedt review of health and safety regulation. The Löfstedt committee did not hold a unanimous position, however, and the TUC nominee on the Löfstedt review, as well as the MP representing Labour, were clear that they were opposed to the position taken. Indeed, in autumn 2012 when the Health and Safety Executive consulted on exempting some of the self-employed from health and safety provisions, the majority of those who responded to that consultation—including a majority of the self-employed—were opposed to the proposal. Despite that, it has been included in the Bill.
	The proposal was also opposed by professionals involved in health and safety. Indeed, their chartered body, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, stated:
	“This is a very short-sighted and misleading move, it won’t actually help anyone; it won’t support business; but it will cause general confusion.”
	That confusion has been illustrated clearly by the debate today, particularly on the list of types of employment, self-employment, and the sectors that would be included under the health and safety provisions, and those that might not be.
	At the moment, all self-employed people have a legal duty to ensure that they protect others from harm resulting from their work activity. The strength of the health and safety legislation in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is its simplicity, and the fact that the test and legal obligation involved is simple and applies to everybody. One problem with other areas of employment protection is that it is often an employee who may receive some form of right or entitlement, rather than workers in general, which means that many people try to avoid obligations by using devices such as zero-hours contracts. The fact that the Government are proceeding down such a path for health and safety is a negative development that I believe we will all regret in years to come.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) indicated, fatality rates
	for those in self-employment are far higher than for those who are employed. The current fatality rate is 1.1 person per 100,000 for the self-employed, compared with 0.4 per 100,000 for employees. In part, that might be because self-employed people are more likely to be found in more dangerous occupations. However, the statistics on people with the same occupation show that self-employed people seem to have higher fatality rates.
	Migrant workers are more likely to be self-employed and therefore more likely to be affected. They are obviously more likely to have a poor command of English, which probably means that they are more in need of clear guidance. Six out of 10 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants living in Britain last year were self-employed. No statistics are currently kept on the number of people who are killed, injured or made ill as a result of the actions of the self-employed, whether relating to self-employed people themselves or the general public.
	We know that the problem of deaths and illnesses associated with work is extremely significant. Worldwide, 2.3 million die as a result of incidents at work every year. Hazards, the health and safety magazine, estimates that, in Britain, work kills 1,400 people each year, and that 50,000 die in work-related incidents. Health and safety legislation is far from red tape. It has saved probably hundreds of thousands of lives since it came into effect in 1974. The Government are trying yet again in the Bill to take away that protection for the self-employed. It is a bad day for Britain. I ask the Minister to think again and to look at the legislation. I ask him to protect the simplicity of the 1974 Act and ensure that all workers and all at work are covered by it.

Oliver Heald: We have had a lively debate, featuring contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), and the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark).
	I will begin with the two points made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield on Northern Ireland provision—new clause 2. The meaning of “a workplace” does include a vehicle or a motorcycle. I believe I have answered his point on a “blanket provision”. His other point was on article 13A of the 1990 order, which he described as section 12. The point is that the measure relates to the protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with the requirements to wear safety helmets. Subsections (9) to (11) of new clause 2 amend article 13A so that any person who attempts to impose a requirement on a turban-wearing Sikh to wear a safety helmet at a workplace—rather than just on a construction site—contrary to article 13 of the 1990 order, would be discriminating against the Sikh individual under the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. Avoiding that liability would not be considered a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
	On health and safety law, it is worth starting by making the point that the Bill saves £300 million and is designed to lift burdens from business. I thought the Professor Löfstedt process was belittled somewhat by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, but there is no question but that he is highly regarded in the
	field. The process was done in an academic way, involving industry representatives. At the end of it, he made the point that there is a case for following a similar approach to other countries and exempting from health and safety law those self-employed people—those who are not employees—whose workplace activities pose no potential risk or harm to others. The debate has been conducted by some hon. Members as though the Government want to put people in danger, but all the dangerous activities will be exempt. We are trying to get off the backs of people who want to make jobs; those who want to go out and be self-employed and employ others.
	I sometimes wonder about the Labour party. Does the party want there to be work? The Government are creating jobs at a very fast rate indeed: 1.4 million jobs in the private sector since 2010, despite all the prognostications that the opposite would happen. Some 70% of those jobs are full-time and they are transforming the country. That is partly to do with supporting entrepreneurship, lifting burdens from business, reducing taxes and making it easier to get out there and do these things. Surely that is in the interests of our country. The Labour Government’s record is one of rapid decline in world competitiveness from ninth to 22nd. When we think of the mess that the country was in in 2010 after their foolish stewardship of the country’s finances—their long-term Prime Minister, Tony Blair has said that after 2005 they got it wrong—we really have to ask whether we should take lectures from such a party on a deregulation measure.

Chris Williamson: The Solicitor-General says he wonders about the Labour party, but I wonder about him. Listen, if the Solicitor-General is so concerned and thinks that this is such a wonderful piece of legislation and the prescribed list is so clear, why does he not think that painting and decorating is a hazardous occupation? Does he not think that maritime is a hazardous occupation? If this is the prescribed list will he tell us, as I challenged him to in my contribution, what is not on it? Painting and decorating is not on it and that is clearly a hazardous occupation. What else is not on it? He says that there are no hazardous occupations that are not covered by the list.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This is becoming a speech. It is supposed to be an intervention. We have heard the speech once and we do not need to hear it again.

Oliver Heald: On some of the early points that were made, this is a matter—

Chris Williamson: Will the Solicitor-General give way?

Oliver Heald: Hang on. This is a matter of exempting people in safe occupations from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We are doing that for self-employed people because we want to encourage business. The process being followed to do this is very carefully thought through. The proposed prescribed list will ensure that self-employed persons conducting undertakings where they are most at risk of serious injury or fatality will not be exempt from the law. There is, therefore, an element of the debate that is just not part of the Government’s policy or the Bill. The hon.
	Gentleman mentions painting and decorating. That is covered, because the description of construction, which is on the list, includes painting and decorating. I will come on to some of the other points that have been made in a minute.
	The measure has been described as having particular reference to bogus self-employed contracts, but that is not the case. This does not change the law: no employment law will be changed by the Bill. A number of other points were made. It was suggested that we should look only at the evidence of consultants—the institution that was mentioned—who give advice to people on health and safety. It is the job of members of such institutions to go out and give health and safety advice to people who want to set up in business and be self-employed, so it is not a shock to find that they are not keen on having 1 million or 2 million people exempted from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Equally, we are told that this is a lawyer’s charter, but the lawyers give advice at the moment and they are not saying what one would expect—that this measure will help them in some way.

Chris Williamson: Will the Solicitor-General give way?

Oliver Heald: No, I am going to continue for a moment.
	I was asked about support from organisations with a business background. Yes, they support these provisions. [Interruption.] Well, it is true; they do. There are people who benefit from having an extensive health and safety law that enables them to go out and give advice about these issues, and clearly they have a point of view. Those who want to represent small businesses are in favour of this measure because it helps people to set up in business.

Katy Clark: rose—

Oliver Heald: I will give way in a few seconds.
	Another point was raised about confusion between the workplace—[Interruption.] There was confusion in much of what was said between the place where the work takes place and the activity. It is the activity that is going to be exempted. If something is a dangerous or hazardous activity, it will be exempted from the change, so that people will be safe. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington asked about the docks, but if someone is doing something dangerous or hazardous there, they will be exempt. There is a separate regime for maritime activity, which is organised differently by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the enforcing authority for that area of endeavour.

Toby Perkins: The Solicitor-General is making a bizarre contribution, which is adding to the confusion rather than resolving it. He argues that if someone is doing an activity that is prescribed as safe but in a dangerous place, they will not be covered by the legislation. Does he not understand that the people who fund his party are those who will end up saving money, while the people in the trade unions are those who, over the years, have done the dying. That is why they feel so strongly about health and safety, which needs to be protected. The Solicitor-General needs to clear up the confusion, not add to it.

Oliver Heald: The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 has existed for a good period of time and done important work, but it is reasonable to exempt from it people who are in safe occupations or are self-employed after an academic study has found no reason for them to be regulated. What is wrong with that? It beggars belief that the party that is supposed to be campaigning for work—the Labour party, is it not?—is opposing the entrepreneurship that would make more work available.

Chris Williamson: Will the Solicitor-General give way?

Oliver Heald: I have one or two more points to make, and then I shall see if I can give way again. [Interruption.] All right, I will give way.

Chris Williamson: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the provisions are clear and that there is no confusion, but clearly there is confusion. Why cannot the Solicitor-General see it? I thought he was a solicitor with a legal brain, so surely he must be able to understand it. [Interruption.] He is a barrister, even; my goodness me. Can he not see that this is not an exhaustive list, and that it will therefore create confusion? There is no problem with the legislation as it stands, so why is he trying to change it? He is in search of a problem that does not exist.

Oliver Heald: There certainly is confusion on the Opposition Benches because Opposition Members simply do not understand deregulation or entrepreneurship. If we say, “Here is a list”, they say, “Well, it is not defined enough.” and when we explain that there will be a full consultation on all the definitions, they say, “But that is even worse”. How can it be worse? It is obviously a process that has been going on in a measured and sensible way. It is designed to deregulate, to enable business to thrive in our country and to enable us to continue the improved growth we are seeing. It is a way of enabling employment to continue to grow in our country.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield talked about looking at the polling, but he should look at the polling, because the people of this country are starting to turn to the Conservative party and to recognise the achievements of the Conservative-led coalition. It is the Labour party that should be worried, because not a single one of its policies would help this country. Labour has a negative approach; in Committee, no solid or positive proposal was made.
	A deregulation Bill that saves £300 million, made up of many small measures, is something that Labour Members simply do not understand. They say that this or that measure will not save that much money, but when all the measures are taken together, we see a change—a transformation. This Bill is about reducing burdens on business, and about the future of our country.

Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Amendment proposed: 72,page1,line1, leave out Clause 1.—(Toby Perkins.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 227, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	English apprenticeships: disclosure of information

(1) The Commissioners may disclose information held by them to the Secretary of State, or to a person providing services to the Secretary of State, for the purpose of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to approved English apprenticeships.
	(2) The Secretary of State, or a person providing services to the Secretary of State, may disclose information to the Commissioners, or to a person providing services to them, for the purpose of arrangements made under section 4(1) or for the purpose of requesting the Commissioners to disclose information under subsection (1) of this section.
	(3) Information disclosed under subsection (1) may not be disclosed by the recipient of the information to any other person without the consent of the Commissioners.
	(4) If a person discloses, in contravention of subsection (3), any revenue and customs information relating to a person whose identity—
	(a) is specified in the disclosure, or
	(b) can be deduced from it,
	section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (wrongful disclosure) applies in relation to that disclosure as it applies in relation to a disclosure of such information in contravention of section 20(9) of that Act.
	(5) In this section—
	“approved English apprenticeship” has the same meaning as in Chapter A1 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (see Schedule 1);
	“revenue and customs information relating to a person” has the same meaning as in section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act2005 (see section 19(2) of that Act).
	This amendment, with amendment 10, replaces clause 4(5) to (8) with a new clause to authorise the sharing of information relating to approved English apprenticeships. The Secretary of State and HMRC may share such information with each other and with each other‘s service providers (if any).
	—
	(Tom Brake.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to new clause 1, after subsection (4) at end insert—
	‘(4A) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of this section coming into force, lay a Report before both Houses of Parliament setting out—
	(a) what information has been shared or is intended to be shared by virtue of this section,
	(b) by what process the Commissioners and Secretary of State agreed on the information to be shared,
	(c) which departments and agencies will have access to that information and for what purpose,
	(d) whether some or all of that information was shared or will be shared in anonymised form,
	(e) whether that information included or will include—
	(i) confidential information, or
	(ii) personal data (including sensitive personal data) as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998, and
	(f) how the provisions of this section fit with the Government’s data sharing strategy.’.
	Government amendments 5 to 9, 74, 10 and 11, 27 to 35, 55 and 56.

Tom Brake: New clause 1 provides for an information-sharing gateway between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Secretary of State to support the new apprenticeship funding arrangements. The gateway was previously contained within clause 4 of the Bill, and new clause 1 allows it to operate independently from the arrangements in clause 4. As I set out in Committee, routing funding through employers will mean that the Secretary of State will make arrangements with HMRC, and regulations will set out how the administration of the scheme would operate. The Government published a technical consultation on apprenticeship funding reform in March, which sought views on two payment mechanisms: PAYE—pay-as-you-earn; and an apprenticeship credit. The consultation closed on 1 May. We are analysing the responses and expect to announce our next steps later this year.
	Clause 4 provides for the use of HMRC systems to administer the apprenticeship payments, but we must also provide for appropriate information flows. The use of HMRC systems means that information will need to be shared between HMRC and the Secretary of State for the purposes of administering the payments. New clause 1 provides for the disclosure of information between HMRC and the Secretary of State or persons providing services on behalf of the Secretary of State in connection with approved English apprenticeships.
	The new clause also allows the information-sharing gateway to operate independently of arrangements in clause 4. That will allow flexibility, should it be needed, in any future arrangements. As new clause 1 sets out, information can be shared only provided it is in connection with approved English apprenticeships. The routing of apprenticeship funding to employers will mean that the Government will need to have the facility to check an employer’s credentials. For example, the Government will want to know that the person they are paying is who they say they are, and the new clause will allow the Government to cross-check information with HMRC data.
	New clause 1 is a sensible way to validate employer and apprentice data, potentially minimising the burdens on employers and helping to reduce the potential for fraud. As is normal in relation to HMRC information, the information-sharing gateway is provided for in primary legislation and ensures that taxpayers’ information is safeguarded, with a criminal sanction protecting against unlawful disclosure of identifying information. Amendments 10 and 11 are consequential on the new clause, and would leave out the information-sharing gateway provisions in clause 4.
	The Opposition’s amendment (a) to new clause 1 seeks a reporting requirement in connection with the new information-sharing gateway that the Government are introducing in the new clause. To direct apprenticeship funding via employers securely and in a way that safeguards public funds, government must be able to verify an employer’s identity and credentials. New clause 1 will allow the Government to do that by providing for an information-sharing gateway between HMRC and the Secretary of State, so that information already held by government can be used to validate payments without placing additional reporting burdens on employers—the Government want to avoid that. Subject to the detailed design and operation of the payment system, which is still to be confirmed following the recent consultation, examples of the types of data that may need to be shared in order to validate payments and manage the risk of fraud include: employers’ PAYE references; apprentices’ national insurance numbers; and details of the amounts that have been paid.
	The Opposition amendment is not necessary. Many hon. Members will be aware that information sharing within government is quite normal, provided there are sufficient safeguards. The House will note that the new clause only allows HMRC to share information for the purposes of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to approved English apprenticeships. HMRC can disclose information only to the Secretary of State or a person providing services on behalf of the Secretary of State—not to anyone else. The Secretary of State, or his service provider, can only disclose information to HMRC to request information from it or for the purposes of
	arrangements for the administration of apprenticeship payments made under clause 4.
	The new clause also provides for the protection that is afforded to HMRC information under section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. This imposes a criminal sanction in the event of the wrongful disclosure of HMRC information. This is a safeguard against onward disclosure without the consent of HMRC. Quite simply, new clause 1 allows the scheme to operate effectively and minimises the burdens on employers—something that I am sure all Members will welcome.
	I now turn to amendments 6 to 9 and 74. This group provides for a number of technical amendments to clause 4 to ensure the Bill provides the necessary powers for the policy options on which the Government have consulted. The origins of clause 4 lie in Doug Richard’s independent review of apprenticeships, which recommended that funding should be routed direct to employers instead of to training providers. The Government accepted that recommendation, which will improve the quality of apprenticeships and make the training more responsive to employers’ needs.
	Clause 4 allows the Secretary of State to make arrangements with HMRC to route English apprenticeship funding direct to employers. In particular, it provides for a new function for HMRC. HMRC will set out in regulations how the administration of the scheme would operate. I am sure that all Members will agree with the value of apprenticeships for businesses and young people. Indeed, many in this House may have had first-hand experience of apprenticeships and met apprentices in their constituencies.
	The recent consultation sought views on two payment mechanisms, pay-as-you-earn and an apprenticeship credit. As was indicated at Committee stage, the amendments are technical and are being made to ensure that clause 4 provides the necessary powers for the policy options in the consultation. In particular, amendment 6 broadens the arrangements covered by subsection (1) to include the administration of payments by the Secretary of State to any person in connection with approved apprenticeships. This provides that all payments made in connection with approved English apprenticeships are covered by the clause. For example, the amendment would allow flexibility over who is to receive the payments. Employers manage their apprenticeships in a variety of different ways and some employers may wish to make use of an agent to manage their apprentices and their training. Such organisations already exist and some apprentices are employed by an apprenticeship training agency but carry out their apprenticeship with a different employer.
	Amendment 6 also provides that HMRC may administer payments to employers or other persons after an apprentice has achieved the standard if that person remains in employment afterwards. Amendments 8 and 9 are consequential on amendment 6.
	Amendment 7 clarifies that arrangements may be made for HMRC to recover apprenticeship payments, which would be recoverable to the Secretary of State.
	That could happen where the apprenticeship ends early, or in cases of fraud or error.
	Amendment 74 is related to amendment 7 and provides that the regulations may allow for HMRC to recover apprenticeship payments by making deductions from payments that HMRC would otherwise have to make. In conclusion, the purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that the Bill provides the necessary powers for the policy options on which the Government have consulted.
	I now turn to the amendments to schedule 1. Government amendments 27 to 31 are to schedule 1, paragraph 1, which inserts a new chapter about English apprenticeships into the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. In particular, the amendments all concern new section A2, which introduces the new approved apprenticeship standards. Approved standards will replace the apprenticeship frameworks that currently set out the content and other features of apprenticeships within a particular sector. Frameworks include qualifications and other requirements that apprentices must meet. Standards may include qualifications and other requirements, but they will define occupational competence and will focus on what an apprentice is able to do at the end of the apprenticeship rather than collecting the various component parts.
	Currently, issuing authorities, generally sector skills councils appointed by the Secretary of State, issue apprenticeship frameworks. In the future, the Government will encourage employers, or consortiums including employers, to be actively involved in developing outcome-focused standards before submitting them to the Secretary of State for approval and publication. The main purpose of amendments 27 to 31 is to clarify the role of the Secretary of State and others in preparing, amending and withdrawing apprenticeship standards better to reflect Government ambitions to put employers at the heart of standards development. The amendments reflect what we have learned from those employers developing trailblazer standards and it is right that that is properly reflected in the legislation.
	Amendment 27 removes the requirement that only the Secretary of State must prepare the standard. Amendment 28 provides that the standards may be prepared by the Secretary of State or another person, including any employer. The Secretary of State must approve standards prepared by other persons and there will still be a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish apprenticeship standards. The amendments will allow employers to prepare standards and would ensure that they are all of a high quality and consistent standard.
	Amendment 29 clarifies that the Secretary of State may publish a revised version of a standard or withdraw a standard with or without publishing another in its place. Amendment 30 provides that revisions of a standard may be prepared by the Secretary of State or other persons, and revisions prepared by other persons must be approved by the Secretary of State. This will allow flexibility for employers and others to prepare amendments to standards.
	Amendment 31 removes the express provision for employers or their representatives to make proposals about standards to the Secretary of State. It is implicit that employers, their representatives, or indeed other persons may make such proposals. It is no longer necessary
	to spell that out as the effect of amendments 28 and 30 is to allow for an enhanced role for employers and other persons.
	These amendments support the Government’s ambition that employers should be actively driving the preparation of new apprenticeship standards. Employers know what competence means in their professions and the phase 1 trailblazers have already shown that they are able to collaborate effectively to produce clear, high-quality standards. Giving employers a greater say in the development of apprenticeship standards will help engage a wider range of businesses and will allow employers to see a clearer link between their investment in apprenticeship training and an increased relevance of apprenticeships.
	Amendment 32 will insert a new subsection (1A) into section 100 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. The new section will ensure that payments may be made by the Secretary of State to fund approved English apprenticeships. Section 100(1A) will give the Secretary of State power to pay or secure the financial resources to any person in connection with approved English apprenticeships. That supports Doug Richard’s recommendation that employers should be more directly involved in funding apprenticeships. Without the amendment we would have to rely on various other funding powers that the Secretary of State has, in particular those under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 and section 14 of the Education Act 2002.
	Section 100(1A) makes it clear on the face of the amended 2009 Act that the Secretary of State may fund all aspects of the apprenticeship reforms. It achieves that by making specific provision for the Secretary of State first to fund any person for the purpose of encouraging opportunities for the completion of approved English apprenticeships, or to undertake work after such apprenticeships are completed, or, secondly, otherwise in connection with approved English apprenticeships.
	Amendments 33 and 34 clarify that the definition of apprenticeship training in section 83 of the 2009 Act includes training provided in connection with either a contract of service or a contract of apprenticeship. The Act specifies that apprenticeship agreements should be treated as contracts of service, but contracts of apprenticeship may apply in some circumstances. The amendments are drafted to be consistent with the new powers that the Secretary of State is to have to make arrangements with the commissioners in respect of the administration of apprenticeships in clause 4.
	Amendment 35 supports the transition to approved English apprenticeships and approved standards. The amendment will allow the Secretary of State to make an order to treat work done under a trailblazer apprenticeship as though it was done under an approved English apprenticeship. The trailblazer apprenticeships are pilot programmes led by employers to test the reforms before they are rolled out more widely. The Secretary of State can make such provision only if it relates to arrangements that started before the new legislation comes into force. The Secretary of State will also be able to make provision to treat trailblazer standards as though they are apprenticeship standards under section A2 of the 2009 Act.
	Amendment 5 is consequential on amendment 35 and amends clause 3 to provide a signpost to the transitional power in schedule 1. At present, apprentices study towards the achievement of an apprenticeship
	framework as described in the 2009 Act. Schedule 1 will introduce approved standards that will, over time, replace apprenticeship frameworks. Apprenticeship reforms will give employers greater say in the content and assessment of apprenticeships in England. Groups of employers have come together with partners to develop trailblazer standards. As noted, the trailblazers will test out the apprenticeship reforms.
	From September, some apprentices will enter into arrangements with employers to undertake apprenticeships based on trailblazer standards. Because these apprentices are not working towards an apprenticeship framework, the 2009 Act does not apply. Transitional provision as set out under paragraph (a) of the proposed new part 4 to schedule 1 is needed so that these apprentices can be treated as if the whole of their apprenticeship is covered by the changes introduced when paragraph 1 of the schedule comes into effect. Provision set out under paragraph (b) will similarly allow the Secretary of State to recognise a standard published by him before the legislative change as if it were an approved apprenticeship standard.
	In conclusion, the amendments support the Government’s ambition that employers should be actively driving the preparation of new apprenticeship standards. Phase 1 trailblazers have already shown that they are able to collaborate effectively in order to produce clear, high-quality standards.
	Amendments 55 and 56 make changes to schedule 13. Amendment 55 omits section 85 of the 2009 Act, which currently requires the chief executive of skills funding to make reasonable efforts to secure employer participation in apprenticeship training for certain categories of apprentices, including those over compulsory school age but under 19, care leavers, and those aged 19 or over but under 25 and who are subject to a learning difficulty assessment.
	Clause 42 abolishes the office of chief executive of skills funding and we are transferring the duties and functions of the chief executive to the Secretary of State, with suitable modification where necessary. With the abolition of the office of chief executive of skills funding, the Secretary of State will be responsible under section 83A of the 2009 Act for ensuring the provision of proper facilities for apprenticeship training for these persons. The Secretary of State will have a broad remit to encourage employer engagement with apprentices of all ages.
	The new statutory scheme in schedule 1 dealing with English approved apprenticeships will be more effective at facilitating the Government’s policy of encouraging employer participation for all apprentices, such that section 85 will no longer be necessary. We therefore do not consider it necessary additionally to transfer the duty in section 85 of the 2009 Act to the Secretary of State. Administrative arrangements can be put in place to ensure the continued prioritisation of apprenticeships for these groups. For these reasons it is considered appropriate to repeal section 85, rather than amend it.
	Amendment 56 transfers the funding powers and related provisions of the chief executive of skills funding in sections 100 to 103 of the 2009 Act to the Secretary of State. These existing powers permit the chief executive to pay persons in respect of the provision of education and training within the chief executive’s remit. As a consequence of the abolition of the statutory office of
	chief executive under clause 42(1), we wish to transfer the relevant powers and functions to the Secretary of State.
	Although the Secretary of State has broad funding powers under other legislation, such as section 14 of the Education Act 2002, in the interests of clarity it is desirable to provide an express power in the 2009 Act. In our view, this will make it clear which funding powers are being used for education and training provided under the 2009 Act and will therefore simplify the legislative position.
	Section 100 enables payment to be made to persons who deliver or propose to deliver education and training under part 4 of the 2009 Act. This includes further education colleges, private and voluntary sector training providers, and individuals. It also allows for payments to those receiving education. Sections 101 to 103 are consequential on the funding powers provided in section 100 and accordingly we are also seeking to transfer these to the Secretary of State.
	Section 101 enables conditions to be attached to the provision of financial resources. For example, funding may be granted on condition that specified information is provided to the chief executive or, in future, the Secretary of State. Section 102 enables schemes for performance assessment to be devised and applied to those providing education and training within the remit of the chief executive and, in future, of the Secretary of State. Such assessments may be taken into account in funding decisions made under section 100.
	Section 103 enables the chief executive—in future the Secretary of State—to carry out means tests in respect of support provided to individuals undertaking education or training under section 100(1)(c) to (e). This could include support towards child care or travel costs associated with education or training.
	I apologise for the length of my explanation. I note that there have been no interventions, which I can confidently say means that everyone has understood every word of what I have said. I urge the Opposition to withdraw amendment (a) and to support Government new clause 1 and the Government amendments to clauses 3 and 4 and schedules 1 and 13.

Chi Onwurah: It is fitting that for the last debate in this Parliament we should be speaking of apprenticeships, as they are so important to the future of our country, and of data sharing, which is an increasingly important issue to many constituents.
	Labour believes that the better use of data can reduce the costs of public services and improve them while making them faster, more efficient, more individual and more personal. In certain areas, such as health, data sharing could lead to new applications and innovative ways of predicting service need and supporting service provision, so we support data sharing in the public interest, but we must ensure that citizens are in control. As the Leader of the Opposition made clear in his Hugo Young lecture, information on individuals should be owned by and accessible to the individual, not hoarded by the state.
	It is therefore deeply troubling that the Government have tabled a last-minute new clause to the Bill to authorise data sharing among the Department for Business,
	Innovation and Skills, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and persons providing services to them when it comes to apprenticeships. This may be both necessary and useful—the actual data to be shared may be entirely harmless—but it should be done transparently, with the right safeguards and accountability in place, and it should be done as part of a coherent strategy. This is clearly not the case here. The “person providing services” could be anyone, from individual consultants to big multinational companies.
	The Government have form on this. In February, their shambolic handling of care.data saw them take what at its origin was potentially a good idea, linking together our individual GP data to improve health care and support new treatments, and single-handedly destroy everyone’s confidence in it. In April, the Government announced that tax data would not only be shared but would be sold to private firms, causing real fear and further eroding public trust in the Government’s ability securely and safely to share our data. I shall come back to those two examples.
	We therefore tabled amendment (a) to ask what information was being shared, with whom, by what process, with what accountability, and how it fitted into the Government’s data sharing strategy. If the Minister can answer all those questions, perhaps the amendment will prove superfluous. If not, why not?
	Yesterday, in another example of Labour standing up for ordinary people, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) sought to amend the Consumer Rights Bill to create a framework allowing individuals to have more rights over their personal data. The aim was to empower individuals through access to data to have a better understanding of their finance, energy bills, health and shopping habits.
	I mention the excellent work of my hon. Friend to make it absolutely clear where the Opposition stand. We believe in the potential of data sharing, we recognise the power of data, but we believe that that power should be with the people, not with big business or Government.
	The substance of many of the proposals on apprenticeships is such that we support them, but this last-minute new clause needs further debate and probing. To begin with, even without the data concerns, why are the Government using the Deregulation Bill for this purpose. Is that how they see deregulation: making life easier for them, rather than for citizens and businesses? Around half the proposals in the Bill do just that.
	Let us move on to our specific concerns. The Government hold significant data on individuals, companies and organisations in order to deliver services and meet statutory duties. Sharing data across different Government Departments, with local government and with third sector agencies could help improve services while reducing costs and the burden on service users. How many times have we been frustrated at having to give one Government Department exactly the same information that we have already given another? How many times have businesses complained about repetitive form-filling? Data sharing can help reduce the burden on individuals and businesses. Labour supports that. With regard to apprenticeships specifically, small businesses often complain to me about the perceived bureaucracy.
	However, there are also legitimate concerns about privacy, individual rights and the risk that Government
	data stores might be targets of cybercrime. The Government have been heavily criticised for their handling of health data in the care.data project, in that it was difficult for individuals to opt out of sharing their health data, which could then be sold on to the private sector. That data-sharing project has now been paused. In April the well-known author and advocate of data sharing Ben Goldacre withdrew his support from the project, stating:
	“a government body handed over parts of my medical records to people I’ve never met, outside the NHS and medical research community, but it is refusing to tell me what it handed over, or who it gave it to”.
	Our shadow Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), said that the Government needed to do three things: make it easier for concerned patients to opt out of the proposals; ensure data are genuinely anonymous; and make the Secretary of State accountable for the use of patients’ data. Accountability, transparency and choice—that is what we were asking for, and that is what we are asking for in this amendment.
	One might have thought that the Government had learnt from care.data, but it seems not. In April they were at it again, proposing to “sell off” some HMRC data to private sector companies. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), a former Minister, called the proposals “borderline insane”, while the Opposition sought urgent Government explanations. Incompetent handling of data sharing reduces people’s trust and makes it more difficult to implement data-sharing projects that genuinely and responsibly deliver a public good.
	Our amendment also relates to HMRC data, so we are at a loss to understand why the Government have not learnt from their experience, or indeed from their own consultation, because last year HMRC consulted on data sharing. In December it announced:
	“The Government has decided to proceed with the proposal to remove legal restrictions that currently limit HMRC’s ability to share general and aggregate information for public benefit… HMRC accepts that it will need to be clear and transparent on what is meant by ‘public benefit’. In addition, HMRC accepts that it will need to set in place comprehensive governance, policies and processes, including the evaluation of benefits, risks and costs of a disclosure, before any data is shared or published.”
	Can the Minister explain where they are? In April, the Treasury said:
	“We shall be consulting further on implementing the proposals for sharing anonymised data, and would only take forward specific measures where there was a clear public benefit and subject to suitable safeguards.”
	Yet since the consultation in December we have seen no coherent, concrete proposals, only ad hoc policy, on-the-hoof announcements and this proposed legislation.
	The Government deliberately confuse open data and data sharing. The Open Data Institute says:
	“Data sharing is providing restricted data to restricted organisations or individuals….Open data is providing unrestricted data to everyone.”
	As the chief technology officer of the Open Data Institute said a few days ago,
	“confusion is understandable when the government tries to justify its data sharing as satisfying its wider open-data policy.”
	With open data, everyone can see the data. However, the new clause is not about open data but about Government deciding to share potentially sensitive data with people they choose without explaining the what, why or who. The Minister talked about an “information-sharing gateway”, the definition of which I do not see in
	the Bill, and mentioned employers’ PAYE reference numbers and national insurance numbers as some of the information that would be shared. I think he will agree that that is potentially sensitive information. To comply with HMRC’s guidelines, he will need to set out the safeguards and processes, and how the data will be anonymised if appropriate.
	The Open Data Institute says:
	“Open data is not a ‘valuable revenue stream’ for government. It is a public good.”
	Does the Minister agree? Will he guarantee that these data, as part of the “information-sharing gateway”, will not be sold off and will remain within the public sector? As part of Labour’s policy reviews of digital Government and the creative industries and digital, we are developing policies for a coherent data strategy that puts citizens in the driving seat. That is why we are asking the Government to report to the House in six months to explain what information is being shared, with whom, by what process, and with what accountability—and, crucially, how that fits in with the Government’s data-sharing strategy.
	In fact, I have not yet been able to identify a Government data-sharing strategy, but perhaps the Minister can help. There is a data-sharing policy unit within the Cabinet Office, so I would have thought that some policy might be coming out of it. The unit recently met representatives of civil society, who have many concerns about data sharing, and agreed that it was necessary to map out the current data-sharing landscape, but we do not know how far they have got with that. This new clause, which is not set in the context of any data-sharing strategy apart from the Minister’s reference to an “information-sharing gateway”, suggests that they have not got very far at all.
	Finally, I would like to share with the House an unfortunate occurrence that I recently suffered. My wallet was stolen, including my European health insurance card. Obviously, I was very upset about that, but I was pleased to discover that an automated line was available 24/7 through which I could replace it for free. I rang it up and heard the following message: “The NHSBSA has a data-sharing agreement with other Government agencies. By continuing this call, you signal your awareness and agreement to data sharing.” I was somewhat surprised by that. If this Government believe that all it takes to signal agreement to data sharing—or an information-sharing gateway—is a voicemail, why are they introducing primary legislation in order to enable it?
	Labour believes that digital can transform the relationship between people and Government. It can make it flatter, more direct and more accountable, putting people in charge. The next Labour Government will need to do more with less, and better use of data could not only reduce the costs of public services but improve those services.
	The key question is: will citizens remain in control? We want to answer that in the positive, and in order to do so we need to know who decides what restricted data get shared and with whom. We need to make sure that citizens retain control over their data, be it in the public or private sector, and I hope the Minister will agree that it will take more than a voicemail message and an ad hoc amendment to ensure that that happens.
	I want to say a few brief words about the other amendments, which I will not enumerate. We will not seek to oppose them. In Committee, the Minister said he would write to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) about the proposals and how they would work specifically for small businesses, but he did not refer to that in his opening remarks. Small businesses have expressed concern that total control of funding will create extra burdens for them and that that may be more favourable to big business. Indeed, the Minister observed that a different model might be needed for small businesses, particularly as they do not have the cash flow to benefit as much from the scheme. I would therefore welcome an update on that issue.
	We believe that employers should have more say in the provision of skills and we welcome their involvement in setting the standards, but we must not compromise on quality. It is regrettable that in Committee the Government voted down our amendments that would have made all apprenticeships level 3 by 2020. It is also a shame that the Government could not find time to add to their amendments Labour’s plans to boost apprenticeship opportunities through public procurement, which is the approach we adopted when in government. That could have created thousands of new opportunities for apprenticeships. It is something we will have to do when we are in government, along with our plans to protect the trusted and historic apprenticeship brand, which this Government are putting at risk.

Oliver Colvile: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last year, I attended the Chelsea flower show. I was given two tickets by Japan Tobacco International, which I declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Two weeks ago, I submitted three questions on e-cigarettes. Although I understand that JTI has no commercial interest in e-cigarettes, on reflection I think I should have made sure that I declared it in my interests when I filled out the form. I do not want to pre-judge any inquiry by the Standards Committee, but I made sure that I came here at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the House was aware of my mistake. It was not my intention to mislead anybody. I just want to make sure that what I have been doing is put on the record.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and the speed with which he has come to the House to say it. I think the House will acknowledge that. We will leave it there.

Tom Brake: It was perhaps remiss of me not to say how much I have enjoyed resuming our jousts across the Chamber on the Bill. I remind the House that the Bill will save businesses £300 million over 10 years, and that it will save the public sector £30 million. The Opposition say that it amounts to nothing, so in practice they are saying that £300 million of savings are not worth having. In our view, they are worth having.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) has welcomed apprenticeships and the growth in their number. That is something on which we can all agree.
	On to the issue of data sharing and the use of data, the hon. Lady underlined how, under the new Labour party proposals, citizens will be in control of their data.
	That is of course an interesting departure from what Labour Members did in government. With such things as identity cards, the retention of innocent peoples’ DNA, the massive database they wanted to create and indeed CCTV, they did the complete opposite of giving citizens control over their data.
	The hon. Lady suggested that new clause 1 is a last-minute amendment, but of course it is not. It was flagged up in Committee, where we discussed the need for HMRC to share taxpayer information with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and others. I am therefore surprised that she was surprised.

Chi Onwurah: To be absolutely clear, the original Bill had a provision for the disclosure of information to the commissioners, but only for the purpose of arrangements made under clause 4(1), which very narrowly defines the purpose as being for payroll administration. However, new clause 1 is much broader, in that it is for anything
	“in relation to…English apprenticeships.”
	When the Bill comes back from the Lords, perhaps the provision will cover anything in relation to any BIS functions whatsoever. It is clearly being made wider and wider.

Tom Brake: I do not agree. The hon. Lady will find that the provision is quite tightly defined, and that should satisfy her.
	The hon. Lady also referred to the need for safeguards. There will clearly be very significant safeguards for data exchange, and I will give some examples. For a new apprenticeship funding mechanism, as for any new system, the Skills Funding Agency will expect expert assessments of the information and security risks as part of the development on an ongoing basis. An action plan will be developed to address the risks identified, and the senior information risk owner will have to be satisfied that those risks have been sufficiently mitigated before any system goes live. There will be periodic system tests to see whether anyone can break into it. Staff duties will be segregated to protect information. All staff will complete annual training on protecting information, and any security breaches, including near misses, will have to be reported and acted on.
	HMRC has a criminal sanction for wrongful disclosure of customer information. As I have stated, in providing its data to other Departments, the continuing protection of HMRC data is a vital safeguard that must remain in place. That is why the HMRC criminal sanction in section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 applies to any wrongful disclosure by staff or contractors of a Department that receives HMRC information. In addition, while a legislative gateway may allow for the supply of information from HMRC to another Department, it is generally constructed so that the other Department is not permitted to pass on that information to another organisation, public or private, without recourse to HMRC, and that is the case with new clause 1.
	The safeguards that the hon. Lady wants are therefore already in place. The data are secure, and any exchange of data will be done only under very tightly controlled procedures.

Chi Onwurah: The Minister’s words offer some reassurance on the systems to be put in place, but not
	on accountability. We have seen with universal credit that accountability for identity management and for the success of a project can be very diffuse. Who will own and therefore be accountable for this new IT system?

Tom Brake: I would love to be able to answer that question immediately, but, as the hon. Lady is aware, the consultation on the solution closed on 1 May, so the technical solution has not been devised. I am therefore not in a position to clarify precisely where the responsibility will lie, because the system is not yet specified. At the point of specification, I am sure we will be able to provide her with the clarity she needs.
	I have provided examples, which the hon. Lady quoted, of the data that might be shared. As I have just said, the consultation closed on 1 May, so I am not in a position to give her an extensive list of the data that will be shared. I assure her that it will be restricted to the purposes for which it is required.
	The hon. Lady asked why this matter is in the Deregulation Bill. One major thing that the Government are trying to deliver in the area of deregulation is to provide employers with a much greater say over the way in which apprenticeships are managed and the standards developed. We also want to ensure that employers have a greater financial stake in apprenticeships, because we believe that that will drive quality in apprenticeships. The Bill is therefore the appropriate vehicle in which to make the arrangements for the data sharing that we have discussed.
	It is the Government’s clear objective to avoid, as far as is possible, any unnecessary exchange of data and any additional burden on businesses, especially small businesses, to provide information that they might already have provided to Government for other reasons. We want to minimise the need for businesses to provide additional information.
	I hope that I have dealt with all the hon. Lady’s points.

Chi Onwurah: rose—

Tom Brake: Clearly I have not, so I will give way once more.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for being generous in this last debate. It concerns me that he implies that a system does not have an owner until it has been specified. It is the owner of the system that should be specifying it in order to avoid the car crashes in IT development that we have seen under the Governments of both major parties. Again, will he come back to me with who owns the specification of this information-sharing gateway or data-sharing system?

Tom Brake: I am not in a position to do that. Assuming that HMRC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are involved, they will want to play a major role in providing accountability for that system. The hon. Lady and I both went to Imperial college London. I went on to work in the IT industry, so I understand perfectly the importance of having somebody who is accountable for a system. I am certain that the Government will ensure that someone or a particular Department is very clearly accountable, and that the lines of responsibility and accountability are very clear.
	With that, I commend the Government proposals and urge the Opposition not to press amendment (a) to new clause 1.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Apprenticeships: simplification

Amendment made: 5,page2,line22, at end insert—
	‘( ) Part 4 of the Schedule contains transitional provision.’.—(Tom Brake.)
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 35.

Clause 4
	 — 
	English apprenticeships: funding arrangements

Amendments made: 6,page2,line26, leave out from ‘of’ to end of line 28 and insert
	‘apprenticeship payments.
	( ) “Apprenticeship payments” are payments that may be made by the Secretary of State to any person—
	(a) for the purpose of encouraging the provision of opportunities for individuals to complete approved English apprenticeships or to undertake work following the completion of such apprenticeships, or
	(b) otherwise in connection with approved English apprenticeships.’.
	This amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State may make arrangements with HMRC for HMRC to administer payments that may be made by the Secretary of State to any person in connection with approved English apprenticeships.
	Amendment 7,page2,line28, at end insert—
	‘( ) The arrangements that may be made under subsection (1) include arrangements under which the Commissioners are responsible for recovery where an apprenticeship payment is made but the whole or any part of it is (for whatever reason) recoverable by the Secretary of State.’.
	This amendment clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that arrangements made under clause 4(1) may include responsibility for HMRC to recover any apprenticeship payments which are recovera
	ble by the Secretary of State.
	Amendment 8,page2,line33, leave out ‘employers’ and insert
	‘persons of a description specified in the regulations’.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 6.
	Amendment 9,page2,line38, leave out from ‘with’ to end of line 39 and insert ‘approved English apprenticeships’.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 6.
	Amendment 74,page2,line39, at end insert—
	‘( ) The regulations may, in particular, also provide that, where the Commissioners are responsible for recovering the whole or any part of an apprenticeship payment from a person of a description specified in the regulations, they may do so by deducting the amount from any payments that they would otherwise be required to make to that person and that are of a kind specified in the regulations.’.
	This amendment ensures that, for the purposes of arrangements under clause 4(1), HMRC may make regulations to enable them to recover apprenticeship payments from persons, who will be described in the regulations, by making deductions from payments that HMRC would otherwise have to make.
	Amendment 10,page3,line1, leave out subsections (5) to (8).
	This amendment is consequential on amendment NC1.
	Amendment 11,page3, leave out lines 27 to 29.—(Tom Brake.)
	This amendment is consequential on amendment NC1.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Approved English apprenticeships

Amendments made: 27,page53,line9, leave out ‘prepare and’.
	This amendment removes the requirement that the Secretary of State must prepare apprenticeship standards. It is related to amendment 28.
	Amendment 28,page53,line11, at end insert—
	‘( ) Each standard must be—
	(a) prepared by the Secretary of State, or
	(b) prepared by another person and approved by the Secretary of State.’.
	This amendment allows for any person, including employers, to prepare apprenticeship standards (as well as the Secretary of State). A standard must be approved by the Secretary of State if it is prepared by another person.
	Amendment 29,page53,line19, leave out from ‘State’ to end of line 24 and insert
	‘may—
	(a) publish a revised version of a standard, or
	(b) withdraw a standard (with or without publishing another in its place).’.
	This amendment, which is related to amendment 30, allows for the Secretary of State to publish an amended version of a standard or to withdraw a standard (with or without publishing another one).
	Amendment 30,page53,line24, at end insert—
	‘( ) Revisions of a standard may be—
	(a) prepared by the Secretary of State, or
	(b) prepared by another person and approved by the Secretary of State.’.
	This amendment allows for any person, including employers, to prepare revisions of apprenticeship standards (as well as the Secretary of State). A standard must be approved by the Secretary of State if it is prepared by another person.
	Amendment 31,page53, leave out lines 25 to 27.
	This amendment removes the express provision for employers or their representatives to make proposals to the Secretary of State about standards. This is considered unnecessary in the light of amendments 28 and 30 which allow for an enhanced role for employers and other persons.
	Amendment 32,page55,line25, at end insert—
	‘1A (1) Section 100 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (provision of financial resources) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after “financial resources” insert “under this subsection”.
	(3) After subsection (1) insert—
	“(1A) The Secretary of State may secure the provision of financial resources to any person under this subsection (whether or not the resources could be secured under subsection (1))—
	(a) for the purpose of encouraging the provision of opportunities for individuals to complete approved English apprenticeships or to undertake work following the completion of such apprenticeships, or
	(b) otherwise in connection with approved English apprenticeships.”
	(4) In subsection (3), after “subsection (1)” insert “or (1A)”.
	(5) In subsection (4), after “subsection (1)(c)” insert “or (1A)”.
	1B (1) Section 101of that Act (financial resources: conditions) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) after “may” insert “(among other things)”;
	(b) omit paragraph (b).
	(3) Omit subsections (4) and (5).
	1C In section 103 of that Act (means tests), in subsection (1) (as amended by paragraph 13C of Schedule 13) after “section 100(1)(c), (d) or (e)” insert “or (1A)”.’.
	This amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State may make payments relating to approved English apprenticeships under section 100 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (provision of financial resources). It makes consequential changes to sections 100, 101 
	and 103 of that Act.
	Amendment 33,page56,line17, leave out ‘employment’ and insert ‘service’.
	This amendment, together with amendment 34, is to clarify that “apprenticeship training” in section 83 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 includes training provided in connection with any contract of service or contract of apprenticeship.
	Amendment 34,page56,line18, after ‘agreement)’ insert ‘or contract of apprenticeship’.
	See amendment 33.
	Amendment 35,page57,line38, at end insert—

‘Part 4
	 — 
	Transitional provision

The provision that may be included in an order under section77(7) in connection with the coming into force of paragraph 1 of this Schedule includes provision—
	(a) for work done by a person under an arrangement described in the order to be treated as work done under an approved English apprenticeship within the meaning of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, where the person begins to work under the arrangement before the paragraph comes into force and continues to do so (for any period) afterwards;
	(b) for a standard published by the Secretary of State before the paragraph comes into force, in connection with work that by virtue of provision made under paragraph (a) is treated as work done under an approved English apprenticeship, to be treated as if it were an approved apprenticeship standard published under section A2 of the 2009 Act in relation to the approved English apprenticeship.’.—(Tom Brake.)
	This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may by order make certain transitional provision, in particular, provision for work to be treated as if it were done under an approved English apprenticeship where the work was done under other specified arrangements before paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 comes into force.

Schedule 13
	 — 
	Abolition of office of the Chief Executive of Skills Funding

Amendments made: 55,page142,line14, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—
	‘8 Omit section 85 (provision of apprenticeship training etc for persons within section 83 or 83A).’.
	This amendment repeals section 85 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (which imposes a duty on the Chief Executive of Skills Funding to make reasonable efforts to secure employer participation in certain apprenticeship training) instead of transferring the duty to the Secretary of State.
	Amendment 56,page142,line40, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—
	‘13 (1) Section 100 (provision of financial resources) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) in the opening words, for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”;
	(b) in paragraph (a), for “Chief Executive’s remit” substitute “Secretary of State’s remit under this Part”;
	(c) omit paragraph (f).
	(3) Omit subsection (2).
	(4) In subsection (3)—
	(a) in the opening words, for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”;
	(b) in paragraph (c), for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”.
	(5) In subsection (4), for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”.
	13A (1) Section 101 (financial resources: conditions) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for “by the Chief Executive” substitute “by the Secretary of State under section 100”.
	(3) In subsection (3)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), for “Chief Executive” (in each place where it occurs) substitute “Secretary of State”;
	(b) in paragraph (b)—
	(i) for “Chief Executive” (in each place where it occurs) substitute “Secretary of State”;
	(ii) for “the functions of the office” substitute “functions under this Part”.
	(4) In subsection (6)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), for “Chief Executive” (in each place where it occurs) substitute “Secretary of State”;
	(b) in paragraph (b), for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”.
	13B (1) Section 102 (performance assessments) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”;
	(b) for “Chief Executive’s remit” substitute “Secretary of State’s remit under this Part”.
	13C (1) Section 103 (means tests) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for “The Chief Executive” substitute “For the purpose of the exercise of the powers under section 100(1)(c), (d) or (e), the Secretary of State”.
	(3) Omit subsection (2).’.—(Tom Brake.)
	This amendment transfers the funding powers of the Chief Executive of Skills Funding under sections 100 to 103 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to the Secretary of State.
	Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

PETITIONS

Health Services in East Cleveland and Park End, Middlesbrough

Tom Blenkinsop: The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe in fighting to defend the NHS, believe in fighting to defend the NHS services in East Cleveland and Park End, Middlesbrough, and oppose cuts inflicted by the Conservative-led government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012; further that the Petitioners believe that proposals to scrap GP services at Skelton Medical Centre should be abandoned;
	further that proposals to scrap GP services at Park End Medical Centre should also be abandoned; further that the Petitioners believe that South Tees clinical commissioning group’s plans to close East Cleveland Hospital’s and Guisborough Hospital’s minor injuries units is short-sighted given the £50 million deficit of South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and further that the Petitioners condemn South Tees clinical commissioning group’s decision to close Skelton’s NHS walk-in centre.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage NHS England and South Tees clinical commissioning group to reverse plans to close Park End Medical Centre, Skelton Medical Centre, its NHS walk-in centre and East Cleveland and Guisborough Hospital’s minor injury units.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001352]

CAMRA’s call for a Pubs Watchdog

Greg Mulholland: I wish to present to the House the pub scandal petition on behalf of the Campaign for Real Ale, which organised this petition through 38 Degrees.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Government should stick to its promise to introduce a watchdog to prevent valued pubs from facing closure due to unfair practices in the pub sector; further that the Petitioners believe that a pubs watchdog is urgently needed to govern the behaviour of large pub companies so that publicans are treated fairly by ensuring that rents and wholesale prices are reasonable; and further that a Petition from UK residents on this subject has received over 44,500 signatures. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to stick to its promise and introduce a pubs watchdog to protect valued pubs from the risk of closure.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001353]

Proposed closure of the NatWest branch on Splott Road, Cardiff

Stephen Doughty: I have a petition regarding the proposed closure of the NatWest branch on Splott road in Cardiff, which I was pleased to accept at the Carlisle bakery on Splott road in Splott recently.
	The Petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners wish to protest against the closure of the NatWest branch on Splott Road, Cardiff, in the constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth and further that a local Petition on this subject has received nearly 300 signatures.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons notes the Petition and urges the Government to hold talks with representatives of NatWest to consider the impacts of the branch closure on the local community.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001354]

Mr Speaker: Order. The sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bells to be sounded.
	Sitting suspended (Order, 13 May).

MESSAGE TO ATTEND THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
	The Speaker, with the House, went up to hear Her Majesty’s Commission; on their return, the Speaker sat in the Clerk’s place at the Table.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:
	Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014
	Deep Sea Mining Act 2014
	Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014
	Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014
	Intellectual Property Act 2014
	Pensions Act 2014
	Defence Reform Act 2014
	Water Act 2014
	Immigration Act 2014
	Care Act 2014
	House of Lords Reform Act 2014
	Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 2014

Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech

Mr Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, one of the Lords Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty’s Command. For greater accuracy I have obtained a copy, and also directed that the terms of the Speech be printed in the Journal of this House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
	The Speech was as follows:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: My Ministers’ first priority has been to strengthen the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom through the growth of the private sector and the creation of further opportunities for employment. To this end, legislation has been passed to make it easier for businesses to protect their intellectual property and to reform the financial services sector. Legislation has also been enacted to introduce a new Employment Allowance to support the creation of jobs and to help small businesses.
	My Government has made it a priority to promote investment in infrastructure across the United Kingdom. In pursuance of this, legislation has been passed to update energy infrastructure and to improve the water industry. Legislation was also introduced to enable the building of the High Speed Two railway line to provide further opportunities for economic growth in many of Britain’s cities.
	My Ministers have worked to promote a fairer society that rewards people who work hard. In pursuit of this goal, legislation was brought forward to support people who have saved for their retirement and to reform the way long-term care is paid for so that the elderly should not have to sell their homes to meet the costs of their care.
	Legislation was enacted to ensure sufferers of mesothelioma receive payments where no liable employer or insurer can be traced.
	Policies have been pursued which are designed to ensure that every child has the best start in life, regardless of background. Measures have been passed to reform the law on marriage in England and Wales to make provision for same sex couples.
	My Government attaches the highest priority to reducing crime and protecting national security. Legislation was passed to reform the way in which offenders are rehabilitated in England and Wales. Alongside these reforms, legislation was enacted to introduce new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, cut crime and reform the police.
	Legislation was passed further to reform Britain’s immigration system to attract people who will contribute and deter those who will not.
	With regard to the defence of the Realm, legislation was brought forward to improve the way defence equipment is procured and to strengthen the Reserve Forces. Legislation was also passed governing remote gambling and in relation to the European Union.
	My Government has taken forward a range of measures designed to foster greater accountability in public life. Legislation was passed to provide for greater transparency in lobbying, third party campaign spending and trade union administration. Measures were also enacted regarding 
	i
	local government, to close the Audit Commission and to give effect to a number of institutional improvements in Northern Ireland.
	My Ministers have pursued policies to benefit people in every part of the United Kingdom and have continued to work to foster a strong working relationship with the devolved administrations.
	The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to welcome Her Excellency the President of the Republic of Korea and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Ireland on their visits to the United Kingdom. We were heartened by the warm welcome we received on our visit to Italy and the Holy See.
	On the international stage, my Government has worked to reduce conflict and alleviate human suffering, through negotiations with Iran, by championing the rights of Syrians, and by supporting the Afghan people. My Ministers helped to secure the first international Arms Trade Treaty and are leading a worldwide effort to end the scourge of sexual violence in conflict. My Ministers have striven to promote British trade and investment around the world, creating new opportunities for the British people. Working with European partners, my Ministers have made progress towards a more open, competitive, flexible and democratically accountable European Union.

Members of the House of Commons: I thank you for the provisions which you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

PROROGATION

Mr Speaker: The Commission was also for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
	“My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
	By virtue of Her Majesty’s Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty’s name, and in obedience to Her Majesty’s Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday, the fourth day of June to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday, the fourth day of June.”
	End of the Third Session (opened on 8 May 2013) of the Fifty-Fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Sixty-Third Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.